Are all mediums con artists then? [Archive]

drkitten

2nd March 2006, 08:59 AM

I'm curious, do you all believe all mediums are just con artists or what? I am part beliver and part sceptic and the sceptic side of me can't believe they're all just con artists.

In a strict sense, they're not all "con artists." There are a number of mediums (media?) who do spirit readings and such like that as parlour tricks or agony aunt columns for their friends, but don't charge money (or the equivalent) for the service. Those people aren't con artists. They tend to be genuinely nice, if misguided, individuals. (Rather like the nice office lady that keeps pushing vitamin tablets on me in an attempt to "cure" whatever I'm suffering from at the moment, whether it be a viral infection or a sprained ankle. "It will strengthen your body's immune system." Whatever.)

However, there have been no confirmed instances of genuine mediums, and without exception, every medium subjected to a rigorous scientific analysis throughout history has been proven to be either a fraud or misguided.

Bandersnatch

2nd March 2006, 09:03 AM

All the ones that have been scrutinised would appear to have no ability in line with their claims. It is possible that there really is somebody out there with the claimed ability, we just haven't found them and the JREF has $1 million if they want to make themsleves known. So far however, the balance of evidence doesn't look good for finding a genuine medium.

Bingo.

Luke T.

2nd March 2006, 09:09 AM

There are very few things I believe with any certainty. But one thing I believe with almost 100% certainty is that there is no genuine psychic phenomena. Of all the paranormal claims out there, I have looked at this subject more than all the rest combined.

And like everyone else has said, those purporting to be psychics are either outright frauds or suffering from a delusion.

Those who are outright frauds are some evil sonsabitches, in my book. Bloodsucking predatory shameless evil bastards.

When someone claims to be a psychic these days, all I care about is whether they are a fraud or deluded.

I feel no animosity toward those who believe in psychics, unless they are offerred a lot of evidence that they have been tricked and then willfully refuse to look at the evidence. Even then, my animosity toward them does not even approach my hatred for the fraud psychics.

Not one psychic predicted 9/11, or the tsunami a little over a year ago. Not. One. And that's really all you need to know about psychics.

Sure, some of them say now that they had bad dreams or premonitions just before those events. Now.

Somehow, it is more important to predict which Hollywood couple is going to get divorced than to warn humanity of an impending tragedy. And after they give you all the excuses for why they predicted a Hollywood divorce but not 9/11 or the tsunami, notice they do predict earthquakes and floods and other natural disasters. And they are always wrong.

There simply is no way to evade the fact they did not predict 9/11 or the tsunami and have no excuse for it.

Dcdrac

2nd March 2006, 09:11 AM

The Derek Acoras of this world are defintiley con merchants, all the others are just delusional

Bob Klase

2nd March 2006, 09:20 AM

I'm curious, do you all believe all mediums are just con artists or what? I am part beliver and part sceptic and the sceptic side of me can't believe they're all just con artists.

And what does the believer side of you believe (or not believe)?

CFLarsen

2nd March 2006, 09:26 AM

I have never seen any medium that did anything that couldn't - easily - be explained without including paranormal abilities.

kittynh

2nd March 2006, 09:29 AM

I think many of them have claimed over the years to be "genuine" but that their powers aren't strong enough to satisfy everyone. So if they are having an "off" day or perhaps they are "Not getting enough information" they say they HAVE to resort to a little deception. One line you hear is "just because he cheated this time doesn't mean he's cheated every time." Or "they have to cheat as the skeptics put too much pressure on them to perform".

Huh?

One of the BEST mentalists was Dunninger. He would blow the socks off people with his mind reading. He did so for years and years. He kept people guessing about how he did it, but it's well known he was cheating ALL the time. (because that is what magicians do).

Ririon

2nd March 2006, 09:31 AM

Mostly frauds, the rest deluded.
The good ones are frauds. :)

Moose

2nd March 2006, 09:31 AM

Luke T.

2nd March 2006, 09:32 AM

For every believer, there is always something they felt was too much to be a coincidence.

Overman

2nd March 2006, 09:33 AM

"not one physic predicted 9/11"

Luke T,

Actually the movie "The long kiss goodnight" with the very sexy looking Geena Davis predicted just sort of an event. I am sure that the writer is physic.

He must be there is no other answer.

CFLarsen

2nd March 2006, 09:36 AM

Actually the movie "The long kiss goodnight" with the very sexy looking Geena Davis predicted just sort of an event.

How so? What was the prediction?

John Jackson

2nd March 2006, 09:36 AM

People can be fooled into thinking that mediums are real because of subjective validation, confirmation bias, etc.

I would conjecture that the very same fallacies and cognitive biases that fool the sitters also fool the mediums into thinking that what they are doing is real. This is the cause of their delusion.

There are certainly the fraudulent and deluded types. Genuine mediums? I'm with Luke T - the chances are very slim IMO.

Stitch

2nd March 2006, 09:37 AM

It wouldn't be correct to say all mediums are con artists. The ones who can do what they say they can do are obviously real. This list is pretty short, however; the names of all legit mediums will fit on a blank fortune cookie slip.

Unless you know something I don't, the current list wouldn't require the cookie slip to be blank for it to fit on.

Rasmus

2nd March 2006, 09:48 AM

ChristineR

2nd March 2006, 09:50 AM

I'm of the opinion that most mediums are deluded. I think you'd be surprised how many of them are out there. The frauds are few and far between, but of course they are the most impresssive.

Ririon

2nd March 2006, 09:55 AM

Moose

2nd March 2006, 10:10 AM

Stitch, Rasmus: I wasn't sufficiently clear, it would seem. Blank was the key word here, gents.

The medium upon which such a list could be written is immaterial, considering the list is of length zero. And I get to score a punny two-fer in the process of explaining.

LTC8K6

2nd March 2006, 10:14 AM

They are all con artists, unless they are not making any money from their efforts or their delusions.

Quinn

2nd March 2006, 10:33 AM

I'm of the opinion that most mediums are deluded. I think you'd be surprised how many of them are out there. The frauds are few and far between, but of course they are the most impresssive.

I dunno. I would guess this is true of most non-mediumistic psychic readers. But it seems to me that genuinely believing you're communicating with the deceased, requires a significantly greater depth of delusion than genuinely believing in the legitimacy of tarot cards or palmistry or what have you. I suspect the fraudulent-to-deluded ratio is higher among mediums than among the rest.

Psi Baba

2nd March 2006, 11:22 AM

When someone claims to be a psychic these days, all I care about is whether they are a fraud or deluded.
Building on this, the only point then for testing for psychic ability at this stage is to determine whether a "psychic" is a fraud or deluded. And the way you do that is to offer to test them for psychic ability. The ones who agree to be tested (and follow through) are probably deluded. The ones who refuse or pretend to agree and then weasel out of being tested are most likely frauds because they know they will be found out if tested and have to go to any lengths to avoid being tested unless they think they can cheat the test (which is why we see the familair pattern of applicants who agree to be tested at first but then as test protocols are hammered out, begin the traditional "backing out" process as they realize their opportunies for cheating are gradually being eliminated).

Soapy Sam

2nd March 2006, 11:37 AM

They have been given the ability by god to make vague, generic comments regarding the colour of something, the initial letter of a name and similar trivia.
They have not been given the ability to pass on any actual useful data from beyond the grave. In all history there is no evidence of a mediumistic communication producing a single useful idea, patent, or hitherto unknown fact.

If they have truly been given their ability by god, he has a warped sense of humour.

I think some must be genuine in the sense that they truly believe in their ability. But I have little doubt that anyone making money from mediumship is a conscious fraud.

Ashles

2nd March 2006, 11:41 AM

Surely any 'genuine; psychic would easily be able to demonstrate their ability.

Almost every psychic I have ever heard of does not tend to make vague claims, they make quite distinct ones. They appear to claim to be able to regularly contact dead people and pass specific messages on to specific individuals.

Anyone, any single person who could really do this would be able to demonstrate it very easily.

Also, how can these messages often consist of complex messages such as how they died, not to worry, they are happy, beware of a journey, etc. yet they seem to struggle so much with saying their own name.

The trouble is, of all the things we really want to believe, what could be stronger than the desire to believe that a loved one who has died is still in some way contactable.

Bottom line - any psychic who performs in a spritualist church, on TV, etc. could demonstrate their ability clearly and beyond doubt within about half an hour. If they were genuine.

chillzero

2nd March 2006, 11:44 AM

Hi all

I'm curious, do you all believe all mediums are just con artists or what? I am part beliver and part sceptic and the sceptic side of me can't believe they're all just con artists.

Are there any genuine mediums out there or is it all one big con?

Regards

Paul

I used to believe I had psychic abilities. I gave tarot readings (for free), and I consulted my spirit guide, and heard my (dead) grandmother speak to me when meditating once.

So, I would not consider the old me to be a con artist - I was not intentionally deceiving people. I honestly believed I was given the ability to interpret signs, and that I was using it for good. So I believed I was genuine, and so did plenty of other people.

However, even as I did all this, I constantly came up with questions about what I was doing, and how I managed to do it. Why could I only get instinctive flashes about things? Why could I not use this 'power' when I concentrated hard on something important? What about the times I was wrong (although they were freakishly few - even looking back as a hardened skeptic) - what happened then?

I soon realised that I was very good at picking up subliminal signals from people, or noticing things in the distance. My specialty was knowing when a driver was about to turn suddenly, or not turn where they signalled to. I could read the traffic around me uncannily. I tested myself on what external information I could possibly have noticed, and realised I am more of an expert on body language, or verbal subtleties than most.

I suffered some severe abuse from new agers and 'healers' over several years, but without this I still had a questioning nature and would have arrived where I am now anyway. The fact that others in my niche did not have any patience for my curiousness, and did not ask the same things of themselves is what finally made me take that final scary step out of the new age community. Otherwise I would still be living in la-la- land, and believing things about how my inquisitive nature was denying me an easy path in life, or my injuries and years of incredible bad fortune must be something I deserved, whether from something I had done in this life, or in another.

There are no genuine mediums. There are people with genuine intentions, but not psychic powers. There are people who could be helpful if you were discussing difficult choices you needed to make, but some friends can do that for you without the mumbo jumbo. It's a matter of reading, yes, but not reading cards, or signs, or what spirits show you - it's a matter of reading the environment and the person before you.

And then there are the con artists who read the newspapers, audience listings, area information, web sites, etc to glean what they need - as well as reading the people around them.

thaiboxerken

2nd March 2006, 11:47 AM

They are either con-artists or self-decieved.

Interesting Ian

2nd March 2006, 11:48 AM

There are very few things I believe with any certainty. But one thing I believe with almost 100% certainty is that there is no genuine psychic phenomena.

I find that puzzling in the extreme. How can you be so certain it doesn't exist. What can someone experience which would convince them that psychic phenomena don't exist? It just doesn't make any sense. You might personally never have experienced any psychic phenomena. Your friends may not have ever experienced any psychic phenomena (although they might be mistaken in this). You may have experienced something which appeared to you to be psychic, but it subsequently turned out it wasn't. You may have heard of people faking it.

But none of this justifies even any reason to suppose this phenomena doesn't exist, never mind certainty!

I do appreciate you stating upfront your own position though. I think that most people on here share your certainty.

My own position is quite the opposite to yours in that I am virtually certain that psychic phenomena exist. There's just been a series of programmes in the UK called "psychic challenge". Unless the programme makers were in collusion with the psychics it would be simply be burying ones head in the sand to deny that these people were not sometimes obtaining information by anomalous means. Certainly cold reading was out of the question on some of these occasions. This is not to deny that on many occasions these psychics appeared to be simply guessing and were hopelessly wrong. But that doesn't negate the times when they were successful.

A lot of charlatans exist, yes. But that's what you would expect given the way people are. As I've always explained, the existence of charlatans cannot possibly provide evidence against the reality of psychic phenomena. Indeed, in a Universe where certain psychic abilities exist but they are unpredictable and capricious in nature, one would expect there to be more charlatans in this area than if we lived in a Universe which was totally absent of any psychic phenomena. The fact that some people can do it sometimes, makes it more plausible for people to think these charlatans are the genuine thing.

I of course share your disgust at those who make money out of vulnerable people. But you really shouldn't allow that to blind you to the reality of this phenomena.

I wouldn't say though that mediums are necessarily contacting dead people. Maybe they are, but strictly speaking that hypothesis is not entailed by the evidence. All we can say is that they are getting information by anomalous means.

boojum

2nd March 2006, 11:49 AM

They are all con artists, unless they are not making any money from their efforts or their delusions.

I make no exception for those who take no money -- every "medium" gets something, even if it's just attention, for "exercising" his or her "ability".

Interesting Ian

2nd March 2006, 11:55 AM

However, there have been no confirmed instances of genuine mediums, and without exception, every medium subjected to a rigorous scientific analysis throughout history has been proven to be either a fraud or misguided.

Well that certainly is not true. For those mediums who appeared to be genuine, there are very few of them who were subsequently proven to be frauds. And there are a fair few where the conclusion that they are obtaining information by anomalous means is the only reasonable conclusion.

Interesting Ian

2nd March 2006, 12:02 PM

People can be fooled into thinking that mediums are real because of subjective validation, confirmation bias, etc.

Indeed.

But it's also worth noting that cold reading is highly unlikely to produce bucketloads of accurate information. Some other hypothesis is required.

Ashles

2nd March 2006, 12:04 PM

Well that certainly is not true. For those mediums who appeared to be genuine, there are very few of them who were subsequently proven to be frauds. And there are a fair few where the conclusion that they are obtaining information by anomalous means is the only reasonable conclusion.
What?

Where has a medium demonstrate in any decent test a significant ability to contact the dead?

Unless you mean that for any medium believed by anyone to be genuine they have not subsequently agreed to be tested in any way that might expose them as frauds. And thus have not been exposed as frauds.

Thing is Ian, many of us believe that there are no psychics because there is no evidence towards the ability, whereas you believe there are psychics despite the fact that there is no evidence.

And just to clarify - I am referring to those people who claim to be able to talk to the dead or predict the future.

Ashles

2nd March 2006, 12:05 PM

Indeed.

But it's also worth noting that cold reading is highly unlikely to produce bucketloads of accurate information. Some other hypothesis is required.
Yes.

It's called hot reading.

gypsynuke

2nd March 2006, 12:08 PM

CFLarsen

2nd March 2006, 12:18 PM

Indeed.

But it's also worth noting that cold reading is highly unlikely to produce bucketloads of accurate information. Some other hypothesis is required.
Which psychic has done this? Be specific.

sophia8

2nd March 2006, 12:19 PM

A lot of charlatans exist, yes.
Ian - in the context of mediums and psychics, how would you define a "charlatan"?

Interesting Ian

2nd March 2006, 12:19 PM

Yes.

It's called hot reading.

Certainly that's one hypothesis yes. But there have been readings which were manifestly obvious were not merely cold reading, but where every single skeptic on here emphatically disagreed with me. The one or two other non-skeptics agreed with me though.

I was absolutely astounded what people can lay at the door of coincidence. Skeptics seem to have a very poor understanding of how improbable some events are.

NiallM

2nd March 2006, 12:20 PM

I'm of the opinion that most mediums are deluded. I think you'd be surprised how many of them are out there. The frauds are few and far between, but of course they are the most impresssive.
They're all frauds.

Nobody said that money must change hands in order to be fraudulent; the simple of trying to impress firends atec makes that act fraud.

Nobody suggested that others must be fooled, either. Fooling oneself is also a con-job.

Finally, it is a damaging act to persuade others to ditch their ability to think critically,

They're all frauds.

Donks

2nd March 2006, 12:21 PM

Soapy Sam

2nd March 2006, 12:21 PM

If you have a TV program with psychics doing cool stuff, then there's a good chance it's been edited and rigged. That's the reason people believe in John Edward so much. His 4 1/2 hours of taping is compressed to about 45 minutes.

To be scrupulously fair, this is true of most programs, including scientific ones.
TV companies are entertainers, not educators, which is a great pity.

NiallM

2nd March 2006, 12:21 PM

Hellbound

2nd March 2006, 12:23 PM

Well that certainly is not true. For those mediums who appeared to be genuine, there are very few of them who were subsequently proven to be frauds. And there are a fair few where the conclusion that they are obtaining information by anomalous means is the only reasonable conclusion.

Are you sure there isn't a bridge somewhere that's missing you?

Seriously, why do you even post? You could easily set up a simple program to look for key words on the forum, and make your posts for you.

For years now, you've posted the same tired old drivel, each time had it thrown in your face, and each time you have been the only one who hasn't seen the trouncing your argument has recieved.

Really, haven't we discussed your theories enough? Can't someone else get a topic in without getting the same spoiel of nonsense that you post whenever a thread starts with the word "psychic" in it? Will you ever pull your head out of your fourth point of contact for long enough to realize that you have nothing useful to say anymore?

I doubt it.

jimtron

2nd March 2006, 12:27 PM

Certainly there are some psychics who are knowingly conning folks out of there money. But I think there are many who do tarot, palm reading, psychic readings and the like who sincerely believe in what they are doing.

I was quite surprised to find many who apparently really believe in this stuff on a mentalism forum (http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewforum.php?forum=15&70447) of all places. Some of these folks know all about mentalist tricks and cold reading, but also believe in ESP. One problem I've found, is in defining "psychic reader." It means different things to different people. To me it implies supernatural power, but if a reader isn't making explicit claims as such, is it fraud? I think that there are many who do readings who sincerely think they are helping the readees.

Anyway, I've been involved in many discussions, often maddening, at the Magic Cafe:
Is there a valid moral objection to psychic readings? (http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=115395&forum=15&164)
Any suggestion on a cold reading book for a laymen (http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=124250&forum=15&112)
Psychics on the Cafe (http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=129439&forum=15&84)
When one is introduced to a psychic. (http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=114323&forum=15&37)
Can Science Ever Prove the existence of the Sixth sense? (http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=105562&forum=15&113)
What special powers have you got? (http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=80290&forum=15)
Palm Reading-How Much To Charge? (http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=9323&forum=15&start=30)
(edited to add link. and another.)

Ashles

2nd March 2006, 12:28 PM

I was absolutely astounded what people can lay at the door of coincidence. Skeptics seem to have a very poor understanding of how improbable some events are.
I know - they are so stupid. They think that when improbable things happen as part of anecdote and unverified stories, yet fail to be replicated under even the vaguest controls, that this is some way indicates something.

What are they like?

Interesting Ian

2nd March 2006, 12:29 PM

Are you sure there isn't a bridge somewhere that's missing you?

I don't understand what you mean.

Seriously, why do you even post? You could easily set up a simple program to look for key words on the forum, and make your posts for you.

For years now, you've posted the same tired old drivel, each time had it thrown in your face, and each time you have been the only one who hasn't seen the trouncing your argument has recieved.

I have little evidence that people even understand any of my arguments, therefore they can scarcely have been trounced.

In this case I'm not making any arguments though. I'm simply stating facts.

If you do not like my posts I don't understand why you just don't ignore them.

JohnboyMN

2nd March 2006, 12:31 PM

Indeed.

But it's also worth noting that cold reading is highly unlikely to produce bucketloads of accurate information. Some other hypothesis is required.

Most of us have never seen "bucketloads of accurate information" come from a psychic.

We have seen bucketloads of vague statements, half-truths, obvious facts, re-hashing of information that was supplied by the subject, clever interpretations, Post Hoc "predictions", and an occasional and rare lucky guess.

Ashles

2nd March 2006, 12:35 PM

In this case I'm not making any arguments though. I'm simply stating facts.
Where?

What facts?

That you believe that psychic ability exists but have no actual evidence towards its existence?

It's a 'fact' only in that you definitely have an opinion on the subject.

Interesting Ian

2nd March 2006, 12:36 PM

Where?

What facts?

That you believe that psychic ability exists but have no actual evidence towards its existence?

It's a 'fact' only in that you definitely have an opinion on the subject.

Well facts like all the evidence is extremely difficult indeed to explain away by normal means.

Donks

2nd March 2006, 12:37 PM

Well facts like all the evidence is extremely difficult indeed to explain away by normal means.
What evidence?

Ashles

2nd March 2006, 12:43 PM

Well facts like all the evidence is extremely difficult indeed to explain away by normal means.
I think we are getting confused here.

If you know of any evidence that indicates that anyone can talk to the dead or predict the future could you share it with us?

(Incidentally I predict an imminent discussion involving the definition of the word 'evidence' and the word 'anecdotal')

John Jackson

2nd March 2006, 12:45 PM

CFLarsen

2nd March 2006, 12:52 PM

Well facts like all the evidence is extremely difficult indeed to explain away by normal means.

Which psychic has produced "bucketloads of accurate information"? Be specific.

Don't make me ask again.

Mercutio

2nd March 2006, 01:05 PM

I had some wonderful PM conversations with Freda, who used to post here. She was part of a spiritualist circle, trying to contact the dead and make a real scientific discovery to be able to demonstrate to skeptics that what they were doing was real. What impressed me about her was that she very willingly shared the experiences that led her to believe (at least in PM--she got very defensive in threads), and when I offered alternative explanations, she actually listened, and tried to be open to those possibilities.

I am convinced that she was not "deluded" so much as "ignorant"--not actively deceived, so much as not having all the information. The explanation she had for her experiences fit, but she was not opposed to hearing a more mundane explanation. She thought that she was doing important work on an important topic; I do not think she was trying to trick anybody.

Was what she claimed, the truth? No. If the adjective "ignorant" was not available, "deluded" would come close. (And in truth, if I only had access to her public posts, "deluded" would come even closer.)

drkitten

2nd March 2006, 01:33 PM

Who? Which are these mediums that obtain information by anomalous means?

In the same place as Ian's coherent arguments.

Mojo

2nd March 2006, 01:37 PM

(Incidentally I predict an imminent discussion involving the definition of the word 'evidence' and the word 'anecdotal')The word "pseudoskeptic" can't be far behind.

Luke T.

2nd March 2006, 01:46 PM

If you have a TV program with psychics doing cool stuff, then there's a good chance it's been edited and rigged. That's the reason people believe in John Edward so much. His 4 1/2 hours of taping is compressed to about 45 minutes.

According to folks on tvtalkshows.com who attended recordings of "Crossing Over", the 4 to 5 hours of taping is actually chopped up into several shows. Not one. I didn't have any reason to doubt them.

However, I do think many producers of such programs do their best to make the psychics look good. It's their bread and butter, after all.

ChristineR

2nd March 2006, 01:48 PM

Luke T.

2nd March 2006, 01:51 PM

I find that puzzling in the extreme. How can you be so certain it doesn't exist. What can someone experience which would convince them that psychic phenomena don't exist? It just doesn't make any sense. You might personally never have experienced any psychic phenomena. Your friends may not have ever experienced any psychic phenomena (although they might be mistaken in this). You may have experienced something which appeared to you to be psychic, but it subsequently turned out it wasn't. You may have heard of people faking it.

But none of this justifies even any reason to suppose this phenomena doesn't exist, never mind certainty!

Well, Ian, I think that if psychic phenonema was real, we would have indisbutable evidence by now. But all we have are personal anecdotes, which are of no use as evidence, and tv shows which are also unreliable.

Every time someone has pointed me to something that they saw as hard evidence of psychic ability, I have found the evidence to be seriously flawed or lacking. I even wrote an article about one of Schwartz' tests pointing out the flaws in his supposedly blind study.

And like I said, all you really need to know about psychics is that no one predicted 9/11 or the tsunami. Geez, Sylvia Browne was on Larry King Live about 8 days before 9/11! not a peep out of her. And so was John Edward on LKL, about 11 or 12 days before. Nothing from him, either.

Luke T.

2nd March 2006, 02:03 PM

Sylvia Browne's predictions for 2005. Notice the Hollywood stars' predictions. That's important stuff for humanity:

Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn will split
* Ditto for Brad Pitt and Jennifer Anniston
* "Problems" in Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones' marriage
* Demi Moore will have a bun in the oven
* Ditto for Britney Spears, though she'll be single again by this time
next year
* Robert Blake will be cleared in his wife's murder
* Another marriage for Donald Trump, but he'll be single again in
about two years
* Sylvia is "concerned about" Elizabeth Taylor "making it through 2005
-- she's given up; she said she's ready to go"
* Michael Jackson will spend time in jail

Sylvia's other predictions:
* Scandal at the FDA over the drug approval process
* A liquor-related scandal in the Bush Administration
* The US will be out of Iraq by mid-year, but we'll be at war with
North Korea within two years
* An economic downturn in the first half of the year, but recovery in
the second half, fueled by developments in medical technology
* Real estate is a better investment than stocks, though "medical
stocks" should do well in 2005
* No national ban on same-sex marriage -- rather, it'll gradually gain
approval in each state

Source. (http://www.deansplanet.com/2004/12/sylvia-brownes-2005-predictions-from.html)

Luke T.

2nd March 2006, 02:05 PM

Sylvia was a regular on Wednesdays on the Montel show in 2004. Not a peep on any of her appearances about the tsunami.

Interesting Ian

2nd March 2006, 02:07 PM

Both myself here: http://www.skeptics.org.uk/commentary_display.php?d=britains_psychic_challeng e

And Tony Youens here: http://www.tonyyouens.com/BritainsPsychicChallenge.htm

have done full commentaries on BPC in the UK.

Ian,

I would not use that as an example of psychic power at work.

Then it's a good job I'm not you then since I am after the truth. I watched all the programmes in full. Unless the programme makers were in collusion with the psychics then the conclusion is pretty much inescapable.

There was only one result of any real interest in the entire series and even then the test was flawed.

Don't be so utterly ludicrous. Yes the testing was certainly less than ideal, but it wasn't proper parapsychological research after all. Each programme produced many instances of apparent psychic abilities. To say there was only 1 instance in the entire series is either a display of mindnumbing stupidity, or of downright dishonesty. People need to see the programmes for themselves rather than read anything a so-called skeptic might say on the issue.

OK, I wasn't going to look at your page. Just reading the first paragraph convinces me that it is entirely pointless to read any further.

You say:

Flawed testing produces results that are meaningless.

I suggest you purchase yourself a half decent dictionary and look up the word "meaningless". Either the testing produced evidence for anomalous acquisition of information, or it didn't. It would be absurd in the extreme to say that it didn't produce any evidence whatsoever. Apart from some sort of collusion or/and massive incompetence by the test makers which wasn't brought to our attention, I would say the evidence compels us to accept the existence of psi.

Anyway, all testing can be deemed to be flawed if you look hard enough. I have never encountered any research into the paranormal and which produced significantly positive results which skeptics didn't think was flawed.

If anything, the programme was a classic display of how people can think they are psychic yet have no real ability whatsoever.

And this is a classic demonstration that skeptics will never ever accept anything which challenges their beliefs. This is why I couldn't be bothered to contribute to the thread dedicated to this programme before. It was full of people like yourself who wouldn't be able to see a paranormal phenomenon even if it banged you in the face.

As I said I cannot absolutely rule out that the programme makers were in collusion with the psychics, but if they were not, and notwithstanding the fact that the testing was not watertight, for any rational person who is simply interested in finding out the truth I think the evidence was pretty compelling.

Starrman

2nd March 2006, 02:09 PM

I was absolutely astounded what people can lay at the door of coincidence. Skeptics seem to have a very poor understanding of how improbable some events are.

And some people seem to have a very poor understanding of just how many times a day, very improbable events occur all on their own. I am often astounded at the coincedences that many people lay at the door of magic...

Interesting Ian

2nd March 2006, 02:12 PM

Yes, I do believe that most mediums (people who claim to contact the dead) are sincere. We tend to see two sorts of psychics: the person reading auras and tarot cards and making vague pronouncements about energy, and the professional fraud mediums (Browne, Van Praagh, Edwards). The do-it-yourself mediums are not very visible. Do an Internet search for "spritualist church" and you will find any number of mediums who aren't making any money at it.

I know nothing about so-called professional fraud mediums. I'd never heard of Browne, Van Praagh, Edwards before I came on here. I have never seen them before never mind seen them perform, and I don't even know what they look like. (actually in my local library I saw a book by Edwards with a photo of a guy on the front which I imagine was he. I wasn't paying partciular attention though). I'm more interested in the good evidence even if skeptics are not.

Interesting Ian

2nd March 2006, 02:18 PM

And some people seem to have a very poor understanding of just how many times a day, very improbable events occur all on their own. I am often astounded at the coincedences that many people lay at the door of magic...

What does that mean improbable events happen all the time?? Cold reading can't produce the miraculous. It can't consistently give a huge amount of accurate information about somebody -- information which would only apply to very few individuals. It's the nature of cold reading that it can apply to almost anyone

e.g you're a really kind person at heart but sometimes some people don't really appreciate that.

It certainly doesn't include a ****load of accurate detail.

CFLarsen

2nd March 2006, 02:29 PM

What does that mean improbable events happen all the time?? Cold reading can't produce the miraculous. It can't consistently give a huge amount of accurate information about somebody -- information which would only apply to very few individuals. It's the nature of cold reading that it can apply to almost anyone

e.g you're a really kind person at heart but sometimes some people don't really appreciate that.

It certainly doesn't include a ******** of accurate detail.

Ian, you do force me to ask again. That's not nice.

Which psychic has produced "bucketloads of accurate information"? Be specific.

Interesting Ian

2nd March 2006, 02:33 PM

Well, Ian, I think that if psychic phenonema was real, we would have indisbutable evidence by now.

No. We would either need to be able to produce it at will. Or it would need to be able to fit into our existing ideas about reality.

If the phenomena is inherently caprcious (as it seems to be) and contradicts certain cherished notions about reality, it certainly couldn't be accepted from the scientific perspective. And I don't have any objections to that.

On the other hand we shouldn't restrict ourselves to believing what science deems to exist. That would be ridiculous. I ain't gonna start believing in lucid dreams (dreams where you realise you're dreaming) just because science now deems them to exist! You believe in them because you have had them, and people have been having lucid dreams throughout history.

But all we have are personal anecdotes, which are of no use as evidence,

By definition anecdotes are evidence. You can't say personal experiences are of zero evidence otherwise we wouldn't ever do anything. We would never get up in the morning and would just lay there and die.

Every time someone has pointed me to something that they saw as hard evidence of psychic ability, I have found the evidence to be seriously flawed or lacking. I even wrote an article about one of Schwartz' tests pointing out the flaws in his supposedly blind study.

I'm still waiting to hear the flaws regarding the research by Helmut Schmidt on retropsychokinesis.

And like I said, all you really need to know about psychics is that no one predicted 9/11 or the tsunami.

So what? And would we really get to know about someone who has had a premonition? I rather doubt it.

Geez, Sylvia Browne was on Larry King Live about 8 days before 9/11! not a peep out of her. And so was John Edward on LKL, about 11 or 12 days before. Nothing from him, either.

Well hey! Maybe they're frauds! Or even if they are genuine perhaps they're unable to read the future at will.

logical muse

2nd March 2006, 02:37 PM

(snip)

As I said I cannot absolutely rule out that the programme makers were in collusion with the psychics, but if they were not, and notwithstanding the fact that the testing was not watertight, for any rational person who is simply interested in finding out the truth I think the evidence was pretty compelling.
I haven't seen this BPC, but is it the program Randi refers to here (http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-02/021006busted.html#i5)? This one demonstrates that the director and production crew are in on it.

Ian, you are intelligent enough to understand that it's a TV program that is meant to appeal to the masses and be entertaining. You yourself have said that you cannot rule out collusion between the show's producers and the so-called psychics. How can you expect anyone to take claims of 'true psychic powers' seriously when such collusion can explain what you are being shown?

John Jackson

2nd March 2006, 02:37 PM

Thanks for criticising what I wrote Ian. I'm always appreciative of constructive criticism.

The fact that you didn't read it however, detracts slightly from your pompous position.

I don't give a fig whether you agree with what *I* say on the matter, it's my personal commentary, but the transcript I've put up is taken from the show exactly as it was broadcast.

Now, if you are convinced that psychic power is real based on a TV show where the odds of passing the "psychic challenge" were often as low as 1 in 4, then it's no wonder that you believe the things you do.

Perhaps you can share with us exactly what it was in the series that personally convinced you?

I'd really like to know what it was.

kittynh

2nd March 2006, 02:38 PM

I rather think psychics should be licesnsed. If nothing else set fees and such. The amount of fraud and what is almost outright blackmail that goes on is a shame. I have one friend that lost over $30,000 to a psychic. He's gone on to fame and glory. But there is a LOT of money in being a psychic.

Also, people that pray on people that have lost loved ones are pretty much pond scum.

Mojo

2nd March 2006, 02:38 PM

Or even if they are genuine perhaps they're unable to read the future at will.You mean some of their predictions are correct and some of them are wrong? I can do that (well, I just about broke even at Walthamstow dogs the other week).

Interesting Ian

2nd March 2006, 02:40 PM

I haven't seen this BPC, but is it the program Randi refers to here (http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-02/021006busted.html#i5)? This one demonstrates that the director and production crew are in on it.

Ian, you are intelligent enough to understand that it's a TV program that is meant to appeal to the masses and be entertaining. You yourself have said that you cannot rule out collusion between the show's producers and the so-called psychics. How can you expect anyone to take claims of 'true psychic powers' seriously when such collusion can explain what you are being shown?

I think it's extremely implausible to suppose that they were in collusion. I would expect skeptics to claim there was, but let's deal with the real world shall we?

thaiboxerken

2nd March 2006, 02:41 PM

I think it's extremely implausible to suppose that they were in collusion.

Why? They all have motive.

Ladewig

2nd March 2006, 02:42 PM

JohnboyMN

2nd March 2006, 02:43 PM

Cold reading can't produce the miraculous.

We're still waiting for examples of the miraculous.

CFLarsen

2nd March 2006, 02:45 PM

Ian ignores the pertinent question.

Gee, I wonder why?

Interesting Ian

2nd March 2006, 02:47 PM

Thanks for criticising what I wrote Ian. I'm always appreciative of constructive criticism.

The fact that you didn't read it however, detracts slightly from your pompous position.

Now, if you are convinced that psychic power is real based on a TV show where the odds of passing the "psychic challenge" were often as low as 1 in 4, then it's no wonder that you believe the things you do.

Oh don't be so ludicrous. If you have anything sensible to say, then say it.

Perhaps you can share with us exactly what it was in the series that personally convinced you?

I'd really like to know what it was.

Well it was every programme. Certainly not every test, but for most tests at least one psychic provided information which it would be highly unreasonable to suppose could be obtained by cold reading. I haven't kept the programmes so am unable to provide details now.

CFLarsen

2nd March 2006, 02:50 PM

Oh don't be so ludicrous. If you have anything sensible to say, then say it.

If you have anything that resembles evidence of your claim, then provide it.

John Jackson

2nd March 2006, 02:53 PM

I suggest you purchase yourself a half decent dictionary and look up the word "meaningless". Either the testing produced evidence for anomalous acquisition of information, or it didn't.

Ian, it is meaningless. It's not a case of either/or (false dichotomy). For example, if you test a psychic in a single-blind study, with odds set at 1 in 5 of them getting it right by chance, and the psychic gets it right, how does that support the psychic hypothesis?

The reason that such testing is meaningless is because it's not possible to tell whether the result was down to psychic ability or luck.

I point out that such flawed and meaningless testing is actually unfair to the psychic ;) as there's no way that their ability, if it were real, would have a chance of showing up.

Pal2

2nd March 2006, 03:07 PM

I used to believe I had psychic abilities. I gave tarot readings (for free), and I consulted my spirit guide, and heard my (dead) grandmother speak to me when meditating once.

So, I would not consider the old me to be a con artist - I was not intentionally deceiving people. I honestly believed I was given the ability to interpret signs, and that I was using it for good. So I believed I was genuine, and so did plenty of other people.

However, even as I did all this, I constantly came up with questions about what I was doing, and how I managed to do it. Why could I only get instinctive flashes about things? Why could I not use this 'power' when I concentrated hard on something important? What about the times I was wrong (although they were freakishly few - even looking back as a hardened skeptic) - what happened then?

I soon realised that I was very good at picking up subliminal signals from people, or noticing things in the distance. My specialty was knowing when a driver was about to turn suddenly, or not turn where they signalled to. I could read the traffic around me uncannily. I tested myself on what external information I could possibly have noticed, and realised I am more of an expert on body language, or verbal subtleties than most.

I suffered some severe abuse from new agers and 'healers' over several years, but without this I still had a questioning nature and would have arrived where I am now anyway. The fact that others in my niche did not have any patience for my curiousness, and did not ask the same things of themselves is what finally made me take that final scary step out of the new age community. Otherwise I would still be living in la-la- land, and believing things about how my inquisitive nature was denying me an easy path in life, or my injuries and years of incredible bad fortune must be something I deserved, whether from something I had done in this life, or in another.

There are no genuine mediums. There are people with genuine intentions, but not psychic powers. There are people who could be helpful if you were discussing difficult choices you needed to make, but some friends can do that for you without the mumbo jumbo. It's a matter of reading, yes, but not reading cards, or signs, or what spirits show you - it's a matter of reading the environment and the person before you.

And then there are the con artists who read the newspapers, audience listings, area information, web sites, etc to glean what they need - as well as reading the people around them.

That's very interesting. So when you consulted your spirit guide what do you think was really happening?

I've often wondered if the phemominion(sp?) could be explained by enviromental perception.

Pal2

2nd March 2006, 03:11 PM

And what does the believer side of you believe (or not believe)?

Well i've seen enough to know that somethings going on so i guess a part of that belief comes out of something that i percieve as being miraculus(sp?). Alos i think a part of me wants to believe it because at the end of the day doesn't everyone?

chillzero

2nd March 2006, 03:14 PM

That's very interesting. So when you consulted your spirit guide what do you think was really happening?

I've often wondered if the phemominion(sp?) could be explained by enviromental perception.

There are things I am still not certain about, but then, I am not a scientist of any description. :D
When I consulted with my spirit guide, I believed I heard a voice from somewhere just behind my right shoulder, speaking to me. I guess this could be my own thoughts, as even today I have a tendancy to 'chat' to myself to work things out in my thought process, but I don't assign the 'other' voice to another person/entity.

Cetecea

2nd March 2006, 03:16 PM

~~~Ian will post something inane~~~

chillzero

2nd March 2006, 03:16 PM

at the end of the day doesn't everyone?

No. not any more.
Not after the abuse I suffered regarding worthiness for abilities, karma, and deservedness of anything bad that happens to me.

Pal2

2nd March 2006, 03:20 PM

Who, specifically, do you consider more likely to be real than fake?

I guess those who don't charge or make money for their services. Just my perception.

Cetecea

2nd March 2006, 03:20 PM

I haven't kept the programmes so am unable to provide details now.

Gee, you could read through the link that John gave you. It describes each episode and test. That would refresh your memory and you could provide the information that people have asked for.

Or you could post something inane.

Pal2

2nd March 2006, 03:21 PM

There are things I am still not certain about, but then, I am not a scientist of any description. :D
When I consulted with my spirit guide, I believed I heard a voice from somewhere just behind my right shoulder, speaking to me. I guess this could be my own thoughts, as even today I have a tendancy to 'chat' to myself to work things out in my thought process, but I don't assign the 'other' voice to another person/entity.

I get that sometimes, where i hear voices inside my head. Although i do suffer from several different mental illnesses. :D

Interesting Ian

2nd March 2006, 03:24 PM

Ian, it is meaningless. It's not a case of either/or (false dichotomy). For example, if you test a psychic in a single-blind study, with odds set at 1 in 5 of them getting it right by chance, and the psychic gets it right, how does that support the psychic hypothesis?

Let's just ignore everything they said shall we? Anything to support your ridiculous interpretation.

And how many 1 in 5's should we ignore before you would come to the conclusion that something interesting is happening.

No don't bother answering.

I watched the programmes. I can't give a definitive statement that cheating wasn't going on, obviously. But no way could they have produced what they did by guessing. Now I am not interested in debating the bleeding obvious. Go and preach to your fellow skeptics because they're the only ones who will be interested in hearing such absurdities. The rest of the human race will simply move on, accept the reality of this phenomena, and ask themselves what the implications are for what it implies about human beings and our ultimate relationship to reality (well, at least the intelligent ones will).

chillzero

2nd March 2006, 03:24 PM

I get that sometimes, where i hear voices inside my head. Although i do suffer from several different mental illnesses. :D

I don't.
Although I did suffer from major post natal depression, which blended nicely into undiagnosed abused wife syndrome.

Pal2

2nd March 2006, 03:25 PM

Pal2

2nd March 2006, 03:26 PM

I don't.
Although I did suffer from major post natal depression, which blended nicely into undiagnosed abused wife syndrome.

Oh i am sorry to hear that. It was abuse that caused my illnesses. :(

Mercutio

2nd March 2006, 03:30 PM

Also, people that pray on people that have lost loved ones are pretty much pond scum.
I hope you meant "prey"; I have too many friends who sincerely pray in situations like this.

John Jackson

2nd March 2006, 03:46 PM

Ian,

You have let your desire for psychic ability to be true hamper your rational processes. This was a TV programme that was inherently biased, the tests were deeply flawed, the programmes were clearly edited down, there was going to be a "winner" by design, and 1 in 5 tests or not - none of the "psychics" scored consistently anyway.

If you consider yourself a deep thinker who's looking for the truth of reality, well I'm afraid you've a long way to go.

I explained confirmation bias in my commentary - perhaps you should start with that. ;)

I alluded to 1 decent result. A psychic named Diane Lazarus did 2 find the body tests where she did remarkably well. Of course we can't rule out collusion of some sort because the tests and conditions were flawed, but I happen to know that Prof. Chris French is going to invite Diane Lazarus for proper scientific testing for this specific ability in the near future. What will be truly interesting is whether she accepts.

If she passes proper testing then I will accept it - I have no emotional need not to.

Edit - silly spelling mistake.

chillzero

2nd March 2006, 03:47 PM

Just as a side note. I did come up with one therory. Mediums claim that spirits can always hear us and that the problem is we can't hear them when they talk to us. So i figured if i spoke to a dead relative before i went to see a medium, for example i asked a question, the medium would be able to give me an answer.

Any thoughts?

Why don't you try it out?

I think you will find that your message will not be repeated back to you, unless you feed the 'psychic' some clues, or give them leeway on their responses to you.

thaiboxerken

2nd March 2006, 04:21 PM

John Jackson, you fail to understand this fact. If Ian saw it on TV, then it MUST be true.

Azrael 5

2nd March 2006, 04:40 PM

Diane Lazarus did well at hide and seek,if we rule out collusion etc. for the sake of example,so people will say(Ian)she is psychic.But why then couldnt she "see" a pair of clogs in a box? Why does psychic power fail every participant on that occasion,and on the occasion of naming John Mcririck(sp?) whilst blindfold? Hmm?
I have emailed Diane Lazarus regarding the $1 million dollar challenge,she hasn't replied.

John Jackson

2nd March 2006, 04:53 PM

John Jackson, you fail to understand this fact. If Ian saw it on TV, then it MUST be true.

Oh, I hadn't thought of that. :(

Does that mean that I'm a sKeptic and not a skeptic then? Or worse still... not even a sceptic.:eek:

Oh dear, it's worse than I thought. :D

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

2nd March 2006, 05:13 PM

I watched the programmes. I can't give a definitive statement that cheating wasn't going on, obviously. But no way could they have produced what they did by guessing. Now I am not interested in debating the bleeding obvious. Go and preach to your fellow skeptics because they're the only ones who will be interested in hearing such absurdities. The rest of the human race will simply move on, accept the reality of this phenomena, and ask themselves what the implications are for what it implies about human beings and our ultimate relationship to reality (well, at least the intelligent ones will).
Oh please. If there was any reality to the phenomena, the world would be a different place. Most people realize this, which is why they move on, yawning all the way. They may mutter something about believing in psychics talking to dead people, but it makes no practical difference to them at all.

Anyone who draws any conclusions from an edited TV show should take a tour of a TV studio sometime.

~~ Paul

kittynh

2nd March 2006, 05:13 PM

I hope you meant "prey"; I have too many friends who sincerely pray in situations like this.
oopsy cold medicine!

Though it's sad how something as sacred as an afterlife to so many people can be twisted and manipulated by these psychics. I loved Sylvia Browne saying that there are no skunks in heaven. What did skunks do? I could at least see some sort of biblical tie in for no snakes in heaven.

Marker

2nd March 2006, 07:17 PM

In response to the original question posed by this thread: the answer is YES.

There is very little else to say except possibly that in some cases the "medium" is conning themselves (i.e. self delusional) as well as the general public.

Admiral

2nd March 2006, 07:23 PM

And how many 1 in 5's should we ignore before you would come to the conclusion that something interesting is happening.

Actually, quite a few. The majority of the JREF tests have a chance of something like one in a million of being right by chance. (Statistics buffs, correct me if I'm wrong.) The reason for this is simple- many psychics claim "Psychic power works sometimes but not others," to cover up failed trials. However, using that same logic, I could say "I can predict the outcome of a coin flip, but my powers only work about half the time."

Now, if an ability actually exists, it should be able to test positively consistently. Psychics are incredibly inconsistent- look at how many failed predictions there are (if you want some examples, the members of this forum would be happy to give some.)

I also have to note that your reliance on TV shows is misled- while the psychics do often rely on guesswork, they also do "hot" readings- they have researched the audience members before they do the show or have even talked to a few of them in between tapings. Also, consider that each episode of "Crossing Over" takes two hours to film, but is shown as only one half hour- which means that an hour and a half of wrong guesses is cut out.

Also realize that these television psychics, while they have no problem getting paid for going on television, never apply for the Million Dollar Challenge- because their abilities cannot stand up under a fair test.

Edit- typo.

Jeff Corey

2nd March 2006, 07:42 PM

...Now I am not interested in debating the bleeding obvious. Go and preach to your fellow skeptics because they're the only ones who will be interested in hearing such absurdities. The rest of the human race will simply move on, accept the reality of this phenomena, and ask themselves what the implications are for what it implies about human beings and our ultimate relationship to reality (well, at least the intelligent ones will).
What a stupid twat you are. And it's "these phenomena" or "this phenomenon"" you illiterate twit.

Flange Desire

2nd March 2006, 10:09 PM

snip
If the phenomena is inherently caprcious (as it seems to be)
snip

There you go splitting my sides again Ian you big kidder!

There is no such phenomena.
It is just a delusion and a con.

Quinn

2nd March 2006, 11:52 PM

I was quite surprised to find many who apparently really believe in this stuff on a mentalism forum (http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewforum.php?forum=15&70447) of all places. Some of these folks know all about mentalist tricks and cold reading, but also believe in ESP.

I can't believe you didn't also link to some of the remote viewing threads -- pages and pages of debate on the genuineness of the remote viewing phenomenon, among people who specialize in knowing how to fake it. Talk about surreal. Along with the arguing, there were a few "demonstrations" of various users' remote viewing skills, some of which were quite good as forum-based performances go.

CFLarsen

3rd March 2006, 01:18 AM

I still haven't seen this evidence of Ian's....

Azrael 5

3rd March 2006, 03:07 AM

Ian must know -or have seen-a genuine medium/psychic to know the phenomena is real,yet in my time on the forum he doesn't appear to be any closer in naming them.Why?

Stitch

3rd March 2006, 03:52 AM

I haven't kept the programmes so am unable to provide details now.

I missed the first, but I have all the rest in mpg format, I'd be happy to burn a DVD or 2 and send them to you so you can review them and provide the specific points.

Ersby

3rd March 2006, 03:59 AM

Stitch

3rd March 2006, 04:03 AM

And how many 1 in 5's should we ignore before you would come to the conclusion that something interesting is happening.

No don't bother answering.

Are you trying to suggest that all the trials are conditional upon each other??

Dcdrac

3rd March 2006, 04:34 AM

I predict that in the future you will die.

That will be £50 please.

Azrael 5

3rd March 2006, 05:21 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And how many 1 in 5's should we ignore before you would come to the conclusion that something interesting is happening.

A 1 in 5 chance is just that! Repeated a million times its still 1 in 5(not the same test obviously)chance.Isn't it?

Orb

3rd March 2006, 05:44 AM

Pal2

3rd March 2006, 06:32 AM

Why don't you try it out?

I think you will find that your message will not be repeated back to you, unless you feed the 'psychic' some clues, or give them leeway on their responses to you.

I intend to, i'm due to see a medium for a one on one in a few weeks time so i'll let you know what happens.

Hellbound

3rd March 2006, 07:18 AM

If this goes according to previous discussions Ian's had on this topic, he will continue to insist there's evidence while failing to supply any evidence. After a short while of repeating that it was impossible to get such accurate information (for which he supplies no evidence) or he will chose one of two options:

At the end he will either (a) try and change the subject to something more philosphical or (b) say he finds the whole thing boring and stop posting.

Ho hum.

You forgot C: Declare that no one can understand his points, much less refute him, everyone on Earth that doesn't accept his obvious genius is a blathering idiot, and that he will go on to happily live in PsychiSuperMetaPhysiLand while we all wallow in the mud.

Wait, nevermind, he's already done C, hasn't he?

Gr8wight

3rd March 2006, 07:22 AM

I watched all the programmes in full.

Ian, have you ever heard of the word 'editing?' Those television programmes were not shown live. They were pre-recorded, and as such, you have no idea what was edited out, or how scenes were clipped and re-arranged. The television viewers likely saw less than 25% of the total video footage recorded for the programme. It doesn't matter how carefully you watched it, you cannot draw any valid conclusions from it because you did not see everything. You saw only what the programme's producers chose to show you, in the way they chose to show it to you.

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to argue against your contention that psychic phenomena may exist. I am only arguing that you cannot credibly use that TV programme to support your view.

Dcdrac

3rd March 2006, 07:29 AM

My spirit guides, who are

called "lookforthemainchanceandtakeit and "theresoneborneveryminute"

tell me I have a propserous future telling people what they want to hear time and time again.

Beth

3rd March 2006, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

A 1 in 5 chance is just that! Repeated a million times its still 1 in 5(not the same test obviously)chance.Isn't it?

Repeat a 1 in 5 chance twice, the probability of two successes (assuming the trials are independent) is 0.04 (.2 * .2). Repeat it 3 times, the probability of 3 consecutive successes is .008 (.2 * .2 *.2).

Starrman

3rd March 2006, 10:00 AM

What does that mean improbable events happen all the time?? Cold reading can't produce the miraculous. It can't consistently give a huge amount of accurate information about somebody -- information which would only apply to very few individuals. It's the nature of cold reading that it can apply to almost anyone

e.g you're a really kind person at heart but sometimes some people don't really appreciate that.

It certainly doesn't include a ****load of accurate detail.

I didn't say it did, but if you make enough guesses eventually you are going to get something right that was not very probable. Those hits will be remembered, and all of the misses will be forgotten (by the believer). I still have never seen a transcript from a psychic reading that contained 'bucketloads' of hits - or anything even close to miraculous.

Interesting Ian

3rd March 2006, 11:12 AM

Ian,

You have let your desire for psychic ability to be true hamper your rational processes.

Oh for God's sake.

It is constantly being claimed on here that rational thought processes will lead one to suppose that a materialist based metaphysic is true and any phenomena that contravenes such a metaphysic should therefore be rejected regardless of the evidence for it.

But these rational processes are never spelt out. No-one on here has ever presented any compelling reasons to suppose that ESP doesn't exist.

In short kindly desist from talking out of your backside.

This was a TV programme that was inherently biased, the tests were deeply flawed, the programmes were clearly edited down, there was going to be a "winner" by design, and 1 in 5 tests or not - none of the "psychics" scored consistently anyway.

I wouldn't have watched it if it were as bad as you're making out. It seems to me, if anything, that it is your wishes that are influencing your rational thought processes.

If you consider yourself a deep thinker who's looking for the truth of reality, well I'm afraid you've a long way to go.

When I want an opinion from a clueless concrete block I'll let you know.

I explained confirmation bias in my commentary - perhaps you should start with that. ;)

No one has ever said anything on here that I didn't already understand. That is after about 15,000 posts (they detracted 6500 posts from my account because they didn't want a non-skeptic to be the most prolific poster). You really imagine that you are any different? You've given zero reasons for me to suppose so.

I alluded to 1 decent result. A psychic named Diane Lazarus did 2 find the body tests where she did remarkably well. Of course we can't rule out collusion of some sort because the tests and conditions were flawed,

No we can't rule it out. I've never claimed that any of these tests are watertight. Clearly they are much worse than any proper parapsychological research. It's a TV programme and that's what you would expect. And some of the tests I thought were daft.

But one things for certain, she didn't find those 2 people by chance. I agree that these were the most impressive results, but with many of the other tests it would be highly unreasonable to suppose they hit upon the correct things to say/choose by chance. Indeed it would be insane and only a skeptic would venture to suggest such mindnumbing stupidity.

If she passes proper testing then I will accept it - I have no emotional need not to.

I'd like to express what I think about that, but I've already been reprimanded by some individual called . .umm . . ."Lisa Simpson" for saying ****load of accurate detail.

Youy know it's funny isn't it. Some retard is allowed to suggest I commit sucide on here, yet I'm not allowed to say ****load. Perish the thought it has anything to do with me not being a skeptic though :rolleyes:

It rhymes with clucking bell.

I can't be bothered to contribute on here if I am to be prohibited from expressing myself properly.

Interesting Ian

3rd March 2006, 11:22 AM

I didn't say it did, but if you make enough guesses eventually you are going to get something right that was not very probable. Those hits will be remembered, and all of the misses will be forgotten (by the believer). I still have never seen a transcript from a psychic reading that contained 'bucketloads' of hits - or anything even close to miraculous.

The misses will all be forgotten? Well there's a psychological propensity to remember hits and forget about misses certainly.

What this has to do with my post that you're responding to I cannot imagine. (the post that Lisa Simpson reprimanded for).

Interesting Ian

3rd March 2006, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by Azrael 5 :
Originally posted by Interesting Ian

A 1 in 5 chance is just that! Repeated a million times its still 1 in 5(not the same test obviously)chance.Isn't it?

Repeat a 1 in 5 chance twice, the probability of two successes (assuming the trials are independent) is 0.04 (.2 * .2). Repeat it 3 times, the probability of 3 consecutive successes is .008 (.2 * .2 *.2).

Yes I know. Or are you responding to Azrael 5?

Interesting Ian

3rd March 2006, 11:30 AM

A 1 in 5 chance is just that! Repeated a million times its still 1 in 5(not the same test obviously)chance.Isn't it?

You are joking I hope?? :eek:

FFed

3rd March 2006, 11:36 AM

I still haven't seen this evidence of Ian's....

That's because there isn't any

:shocked:

Interesting Ian

3rd March 2006, 11:37 AM

John Jackson, you fail to understand this fact. If Ian saw it on TV, then it MUST be true.

Now we have another joker.

I am very suspicious indeed about what I see on TV. With TV programmes on the paranormal I don't know if cheating is going on, to what extent it has been edited and so on.

However this programme was worth watching. It had skeptics overseeing the tests (although not designing them), it was straightforward in telling us that it was missing out those psychics in particular tests where they were an unqualified failure. So it seemed better than your run of the mill programme on the paranormal.

But I am not ruling out any possible cheating. I feel this is unlikely but I certainly don't know.

All I'm arguing is that the results cannot be put down to chance.

Interesting Ian

3rd March 2006, 11:40 AM

Diane Lazarus did well at hide and seek,if we rule out collusion etc. for the sake of example,so people will say(Ian)she is psychic.But why then couldnt she "see" a pair of clogs in a box? Why does psychic power fail every participant on that occasion,and on the occasion of naming John Mcririck(sp?) whilst blindfold? Hmm?
.

If I can run a mile under 5 minutes then I must be able to run one under 3 minutes. If I cannot, this proves I cannot run at all.

That is the type of argument you are presenting.

Interesting Ian

3rd March 2006, 11:44 AM

Oh please. If there was any reality to the phenomena, the world would be a different place.

Absolute nonsense. Where's your argument demonstrating this??

Most people realize this, which is why they move on, yawning all the way.

Most people are very stupid.

They may mutter something about believing in psychics talking to dead people, but it makes no practical difference to them at all.

Anyone who draws any conclusions from an edited TV show should take a tour of a TV studio sometime.

~~ Paul

Well it's a channel 5 programme -- not a programme produced by an American TV station. I find it implausible they would engage in cheating. I think this is a bit desperate to maintain this quite frankly.

Interesting Ian

3rd March 2006, 11:46 AM

oopsy cold medicine!

Though it's sad how something as sacred as an afterlife to so many people can be twisted and manipulated by these psychics. I loved Sylvia Browne saying that there are no skunks in heaven. What did skunks do? I could at least see some sort of biblical tie in for no snakes in heaven.

Sylvia Brown also said that we don't reincarnate. Should we believe that too?

Er . .I think not!

Bodhi Dharma Zen

3rd March 2006, 11:49 AM

No-one on here has ever presented any compelling reasons to suppose that ESP doesn't exist.

LOL LOL LOL

So, when you don't understand the answers is because they are wrong? Funny way of seeing things.

thaiboxerken

3rd March 2006, 11:51 AM

Sylvia Brown also said that we don't reincarnate. Should we believe that too?

Yes, but not based on Sylvia Brown's words.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

3rd March 2006, 11:51 AM

Most people are very stupid.

And your argument? Oh, yes, I almost forgot. Its because those people do not believe what you believe. Good argument, I guess, for you, in your view. Oh well.

alfaniner

3rd March 2006, 11:53 AM

...

No one has ever said anything on here that I didn't already understand. That is after about 15,000 posts (they detracted 6500 posts from my account because they didn't want a non-skeptic to be the most prolific poster). You really imagine that you are any different? You've given zero reasons for me to suppose so.
...

(Claus mode on)
Evidence that that many posts were "detracted", and for that reason?
(\Claus mode)

Your true post count is probably 1/3 that anyway, considering your predilection for making multiple posts in a row.

So, you are a non-skeptic, by admission.

Interesting Ian

3rd March 2006, 11:55 AM

Actually, quite a few. The majority of the JREF tests have a chance of something like one in a million of being right by chance. (Statistics buffs, correct me if I'm wrong.) The reason for this is simple- many psychics claim "Psychic power works sometimes but not others," to cover up failed trials. However, using that same logic, I could say "I can predict the outcome of a coin flip, but my powers only work about half the time."

Now, if an ability actually exists, it should be able to test positively consistently.

Absolute rubbish. There's many many things I can't do consistently. Singing for example. I need to be in a certain emotional mood. It's quite clear that ones psychological state influences to a high measure ones abilities in many tasks.

I also have to note that your reliance on TV shows is misled

Eh yeah . .right. How many TV programmes on the paranormal have I seen in my life? I suspect I could count them on 2 hands. Such programmes are simply never shown. Even then I think that most of the ones tended to be skeptical. It was just a huge relief to see a programme without Susan Blackmore or Richard Wiseman on!

- while the psychics do often rely on guesswork, they also do "hot" readings- they have researched the audience members before they do the show or have even talked to a few of them in between tapings. Also, consider that each episode of "Crossing Over" takes two hours to film, but is shown as only one half hour- which means that an hour and a half of wrong guesses is cut out.

Crossing over??? What the hell is crossing over???

Jeez.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

3rd March 2006, 11:57 AM

No one has ever said anything on here that I didn't already understand.

LOL!! you are hilarious!

Oh, wait. Nope, you are not.

Interesting Ian

3rd March 2006, 11:58 AM

What a stupid twat you are. And it's "these phenomena" or "this phenomenon"" you illiterate twit.

Hang on a sec. Why can't I say ****load of accurate information, but people MAY call me a twat and advocate I commit suicide???

Interesting Ian

3rd March 2006, 12:01 PM

What a stupid twat you are. And it's "these phenomena" or "this phenomenon"" you illiterate twit.

Yeah yeah, I know it's these phenomena. I'm not writing a bleeding phd on here though!

If you've got nowt to contribute than shut it. And don't whine about me using the word nowt. It's the way I speak. Deal with it.

CFLarsen

3rd March 2006, 12:03 PM

Sylvia Brown also said that we don't reincarnate. Should we believe that too?

Where did she say that?

Her book "Past Lives, Future Healing" is filled with examples of people who has reincarnated.

Interesting Ian

3rd March 2006, 12:05 PM

I missed the first, but I have all the rest in mpg format, I'd be happy to burn a DVD or 2 and send them to you so you can review them and provide the specific points.

Could you perhaps upload them somewhere?

Interesting Ian

3rd March 2006, 12:07 PM

Where did she say that?

Her book "Past Lives, Future Healing" is filled with examples of people who has reincarnated.

I thought it was her. Might be someone else I'm thinking of then. Some female who wrote a book on NDEs.

John Jackson

3rd March 2006, 12:12 PM

But one things for certain, she didn't find those 2 people by chance. I agree that these were the most impressive results, but with many of the other tests it would be highly unreasonable to suppose they hit upon the correct things to say/choose by chance. Indeed it would be insane and only a skeptic would venture to suggest such mindnumbing stupidity.
It's not certain that she didn't find them by chance. It's highly unlikely but is still a small, but real, possibility. However, I never claimed that her result was down to chance (others may have).

She may have found them using psychic ability, she may have picked up some subtle but non-conscious cueing from those who knew where the target was, or she may have had a confederate. The point is though, with flawed testing the correct answer cannot be determined.

It rhymes with clucking bell.
A ducking well? :p :D

I'll ignore your ad-hominems - bit I will say that I'm astonished you've used BPC to support your beliefs. It's not what a deep thinker would have done IMO.

Deetee

3rd March 2006, 12:23 PM

If I can run a mile under 5 minutes then I must be able to run one under 3 minutes. If I cannot, this proves I cannot run at all.

That is the type of argument you are presenting.

No:- the analagous argument is that if you can run a mile in under 5 minutes, you should also be able to run 100yds in under 5 minutes.

Nyarlathotep

3rd March 2006, 12:27 PM

Are they ALL con artists? Who knows? have I ever seen one who didn't seem to be either a con artist or deluded? No.

But let me ask this question to the original poster. If I get a sufficient number of people to claim that they can flap their arms and fly to the moon, that some of them must be able to do so because they can't ALL be lying?

Ashles

3rd March 2006, 12:37 PM

Well it's a channel 5 programme -- not a programme produced by an American TV station. I find it implausible they would engage in cheating.
Oh wow...

Response failure...

sackett

3rd March 2006, 12:38 PM

... don't whine about me using the word nowt. It's the way I speak. Deal with it.

Don’tcher troi ‘n edit me myte Eeyun, ‘e kin tork enna bleedin’ wye ‘e loiks, shee? You blooodie well gawt NOWT ter sigh aboot it!

Okay, enough of the phonetic; dialect humor gets tedious.

So does Idolent Iain. At best he’s an exhibit: You could point him out as an example of the mulishly unthinking mind; you could usefully link to this thread so that people might see just how pathetic the believer mentality can be.

But after all this long while, Ion himself is just tiresome. Perhaps he’s crying out for help, but take note that when help arrives he spits and reviles and kicks, rejecting it like a fretful child. “No! I don’t want that! I want – I want – I want the BIG teddy in the shop window! Why won’t you buy it for me! GaaaaWaaaaaBLAAA!” Is that a grown man’s behavior?

The question in the long-ago and faraway OP has been amply answered: “Mediums” are all either crooks or fools. They sure as hell don’t deliver the real goods.

And it doesn't matter a bit. There are still plenty of Ians in the world.

CFLarsen

3rd March 2006, 01:07 PM

I thought it was her. Might be someone else I'm thinking of then. Some female who wrote a book on NDEs.
Get your facts straight. And provide evidence of your claims.

Ashles

3rd March 2006, 01:15 PM

people MAY call me a twat and advocate I commit suicide???
That's very wrong - nobody should advocate you commit suicide.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

3rd March 2006, 01:25 PM

Absolute nonsense. Where's your argument demonstrating this??
To be able to talk to dead people is at least as important in the grand scheme of things as, say, the automobile. The automobile changed our way of life. Talking to dead people has been a vapid claim since day one. No one is finding missing children; no one is finding lost dogs; no one is solving murders; no one is cleaning up in Vegas; no one is telling me anything about my grandfather; no one producing posthumous works by Shakespeare; no one is doing crap all.

You're a step ahead ofyourself anyway, Ian. Demonstrate that dead souls are around in the first place, before making silly remarks about guys with greasy hair talking to them.

~~ Paul

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

3rd March 2006, 01:30 PM

No one has ever said anything on here that I didn't already understand. That is after about 15,000 posts (they detracted 6500 posts from my account because they didn't want a non-skeptic to be the most prolific poster). You really imagine that you are any different? You've given zero reasons for me to suppose so.
This is only possible if you have decided that you will never learn anything again by definition. Unfortunately, it leaves us with nothing to assume other than that you like to listen to yourself talk. I'll make a deal with you: Go somewhere else, learn something new, and then come tell us about it. Then everyone benefits.

~~ Paul

Azrael 5

3rd March 2006, 01:45 PM

If I can run a mile under 5 minutes then I must be able to run one under 3 minutes. If I cannot, this proves I cannot run at all.

That is the type of argument you are presenting.

No it isnt.I am basically asking you to explain why she couldnt do any other psychic test as convincingly as the hide and seek? She claims help from spirit guides etc. so why did they not divine the clogs in a box or the identity of the racing guy(cant be bothered to attempt the spelling again)or the boatload of other stuff she failed at?

Like you saying you can run a marathon,but you only manage it once out of 20 attempts,the rest of the 19 you don't move.Would it not be right to assume that once was a fluke and you can't actually run at all?:rolleyes:

CFLarsen

3rd March 2006, 01:48 PM

To be able to talk to dead people is at least as important in the grand scheme of things as, say, the automobile.

Whoa....That's an understatement!!

To be able to talk to dead people is vastly more important in the grand scheme of things than automobiles, because being able to do so answers one of the most fundamental questions of mankind: What happens after we die?

Do we continue to "exist" or do we merely vanish?

That is a wee bit more important than the car.

Interesting Ian

3rd March 2006, 02:02 PM

That's very wrong - nobody should advocate you commit suicide.

Or call me a twat. I don't think people on here understand the way people in the uk speak. I can't say something like I won a s***load of money today gambling on football, yet I am allowed to call someone a twat?? :eek:

Ashles

3rd March 2006, 02:03 PM

Absolute rubbish. There's many many things I can't do consistently. Singing for example. I need to be in a certain emotional mood. It's quite clear that ones psychological state influences to a high measure ones abilities in many tasks.
You can't consistently demonstrate the ability to sing?

You do talk bollocks sometimes don't you?

Ashles

3rd March 2006, 02:05 PM

Or call me a twat. I don't think people on here understand the way people in the uk speak. I can't say something like I won a s***load of money today gambling on football, yet I am allowed to call someone a twat?? :eek:
Ian are you having complete memory failure about some of the things you have called other people on these forums?

Am I allowed to call you a hypocrite at this point?

Interesting Ian

3rd March 2006, 02:07 PM

You can't consistently demonstrate the ability to sing?

You do talk bollocks sometimes don't you?

Eh?? Hang on a sec, you're allowed to say bollocks but I'm not allowed to say s***load??

Yeah, I can always sing. But I need to be in a certain emotion state of mind to really sing well. Certain songs that is. This is very obvious Ashley.

Interesting Ian

3rd March 2006, 02:09 PM

Ian are you having complete memory failure about some of the things you have called other people on these forums?

Am I allowed to call you a hypocrite at this point?

You may, but it would demonstrate that you don't understand what the word hypocrite means.

It doesn't matter what I call people. The rules must be consistently applied. Otherwise I might suspect I am being singled out cos I'm a non-skeptic.

delphi_ote

3rd March 2006, 02:16 PM

Are you sure there isn't a bridge somewhere that's missing you?

Seriously, why do you even post? You could easily set up a simple program to look for key words on the forum, and make your posts for you.

For years now, you've posted the same tired old drivel, each time had it thrown in your face, and each time you have been the only one who hasn't seen the trouncing your argument has recieved.

Really, haven't we discussed your theories enough? Can't someone else get a topic in without getting the same spoiel of nonsense that you post whenever a thread starts with the word "psychic" in it? Will you ever pull your head out of your fourth point of contact for long enough to realize that you have nothing useful to say anymore?

I doubt it.

:clap::clap::clap::g1::clap::clap::clap:

Kochanski

3rd March 2006, 02:19 PM

Oh dear, this was an interesting thread, but Ian has showed up and now it is the Hour of Scampering for me. Bye Ian, dealing with the fools who believe in John Edward on the WE channel discussion is quite enough for me. I have hit my tolerance of fools limit for the week.

Interesting Ian

3rd March 2006, 02:26 PM

Bye Ian,

Bye

delphi_ote

3rd March 2006, 02:30 PM

Otherwise I might suspect I am being singled out cos I'm a non-skeptic.

It might be a more convincing act if you let someone else nail you to the cross.

Ashles

3rd March 2006, 02:35 PM

Eh?? Hang on a sec, you're allowed to say bollocks but I'm not allowed to say s***load??
'Bollocks' tends to circumvent American-based forum censoring software. I think 'wanker' gets through too.

Yeah, I can always sing. But I need to be in a certain emotion state of mind to really sing well. Certain songs that is. This is very obvious Ashley.
Okay, so you can always demonstrate the ability to sing. But to varying levels of ability.

What is obvious is how this analogy then completely fails to be in any way appropriate to demonstrating psychic ability. Which cannot be consistently demonstrated at all.

If psychic ability were real then people would probably have it to varying abilities - the ones who weren't very good psychics should still be able to demonstrate its existence as an ability above chance.

Yet nobody can, so your analogy doesn't work.

ETA: removing a v and an apostrophe

Interesting Ian

3rd March 2006, 03:47 PM

'Bollocks' tends to circumvent American-based forum censoring software. I think 'wanker' gets through too.

Yes, Lisa has just confirmed this to me, but that calling somebody a wanker and saying someone talks bollocks might contravene the civility rule. So I'd better not call you a wanker and say you talk bollocks. I would hate to break this civility rule. Politeness costs nothing and makes debate that much more pleasant for all concerned.

Okay, so you can always demonstrate the ability to sing. But to varying levels of ability.

What is obvious is how this analogy then completely fails to be in any way appropriate to demonstrating psychic ability. Which cannot be consistently demonstrated at all.

Neither can me singing well. I have to feel for the music, identify with the emotions expressed. Become one with it.

If psychic ability were real then people would probably have it to varying abilities - the ones who weren't very good psychics should still be able to demonstrate its existence as an ability above chance.

So many assertions, yet so little reasoning :(. There's absolutely nothing wrong with supposing it comes and goes and is inherently capricious. Denying this gets us nowhere. Now don't be such a wa . . . . umm, I mean I think you may wish to consider your position here if I may be so bold to say.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

3rd March 2006, 04:21 PM

Ian and his very old (and weak) arguments regarding PSI abilities. When o when is he going to learn? No Ian, calling other people argument "rubbish" does not make them false. Someday you will understand. I hope.

Nyarlathotep

3rd March 2006, 04:25 PM

Neither can me singing well. I have to feel for the music, identify with the emotions expressed. Become one with it.

But, you CAN always produce a vocal effect that can be readily identified as singing, even if the singing is of variable quality from time to time. Not so with alleged psi effects.

blutoski

3rd March 2006, 04:48 PM

Certainly that's one hypothesis yes. But there have been readings which were manifestly obvious were not merely cold reading, but where every single skeptic on here emphatically disagreed with me. The one or two other non-skeptics agreed with me though.

I'd like to see more specific examples. Recall that cold reading, or even hot reading, is not just shots in the dark. There is no 'coincidence' in cold reading. It's a strategic whittling-away from the most likely to less likely matching.

P&T have a fun trick that I copied from one of their books: trick photography of a patron vegetable. You have to stick a transparency in a Polaroid camera, so the transparency is already made. It's a cartoon of St. Carl the Carrot.

You take the photo first, and then get them to 'come to an understanding' of what their patron saint is. No matter what they think originally, you can convince them it's a carrot.

Ask them what their favourite vegetable is. 99% of the time, they'll say carrot. It's not a coincidence, it's just the way people are.

For that 1% who say 'celery', have a pen and paper ready. Tell them that the way to tell what their patron vegetable is, is to fish its name out of a mix of vegetables.

Say "ceeeleryyy" as you write down 'carrot' on a scrap of paper. Get them to name ten more favourite vegetables, making sure that 'carrot' is one of them. Always write 'carrot' on the paper scraps. Then, toss them in a bowl, and pull out 'carrot'. You have complete control.

I was absolutely astounded what people can lay at the door of coincidence. Skeptics seem to have a very poor understanding of how improbable some events are.

I think this argument goes both ways. There is a lot of confusion about statistics, so people develop reasoning errors around what is or isn't the definition of coincidence.

For example, I just calculated that the odds of a particular event that just happened at this desk are one 8.06x10(67). Does that mean that it requires supernatural explanation?

Another problem is mediums' habit of using terrible vagueness: 'near' 'knew' 'something to do with' 'the letter m or n or s'... this makes the mark invent the connection.

You go in hoping to talk to your dead wife, but end up getting stock tips from the janitor at a job you held for three months in the '80s. Or at least you think so, since he's the only Pedro or Peter or Rizzo you have ever known.

Jeff Corey

3rd March 2006, 05:25 PM

It might be a more convincing act if you let someone else nail you to the cross.
That reminds me of Penn's description of Teller and the "Second coming of Christ."

Ashles

3rd March 2006, 06:25 PM

So many assertions, yet so little reasoning :(. There's absolutely nothing wrong with supposing it comes and goes and is inherently capricious.
Dare I respond... So many assertions, yet so little reasoning.

Can't you simply admit that you want to believe?

Even if an ability comes and goes, if it exists at all it should therefore demonstrate results above chance.

If it doesn't demonstrate results above chance, then what possible reason could anyone have for believing it existed other than pure wishful thinking?

Ian, do you believe anyone has the ability to contact the dead or predict the future? If so who, and what are your resons for believing that?

Jeff Corey

3rd March 2006, 06:28 PM

Don't expect a coherent answer.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

3rd March 2006, 06:55 PM

Specially after so many posts confirming he is unable to learn.

Jeff Corey

3rd March 2006, 07:52 PM

Unable or unwilling?
That's if you believe in free will, of course.

Interesting Ian

4th March 2006, 06:52 AM

People can't seem to decide whether there was cheating going on in this programme, whether they gained the information from psychological cues, or whether they just said stuff which was bound to have a good chance of getting a fit and thereby looking more impressive than it actually is.

So which is it? If it was all just some sort of cheating going on then it's a pretty sorry state of affairs that even with such cheating they still can't do any better than cold reading!

Or perhaps people would like to say all 3 were involved but with differing tests. That is to say cheating was occurring in one test (or more), there were psychological cues in other tests, and the rest of the tests was just basically guesswork. I suspect they would do, and this just confirms to me that people just fish around for any normal explanation and try to convince themselves that this must be the answer.

The trouble is that such explaining away can always be applied no matter how tight the experiments may be. This is not to say that such criticisms do not have merit. They certainly do. When I was watching the programmes I was constantly thinking to myself that they could have made this or that test much more tight. I think I am aware of all the pitfalls. Certainly all those that people mention on here. And I can't imagine that such testing would be particular satisfying from the goal of scientifically establishing these phenomena exist. But for all that, assuming cheating wasn't taking place, I think that any rational and fair minded person is compelled to come to the conclusion that something paranormal was occurring on some of these tests for some of the psychics. Nobody has said anything to cast the least bit of doubt on this conclusion. They simply keep repeating things that I already fully understand. There again it's been like that for the past 4 years on here ever since my very first post {shrugs}

CFLarsen

4th March 2006, 07:20 AM

Ian?

Just show whatever evidence you have of paranormal phenomena.

Any evidence. Of any paranormal phenomena.

Put down your pint, and show us your evidence.

JPK

4th March 2006, 07:34 AM

Good morning Ian.
Nobody has said anything to cast the least bit of doubt on this conclusion. They simply keep repeating things that I already fully understand. There again it's been like that for the past 4 years on here ever since my very first post {shrugs} First off I have to state that I have not seen the show that you are disscussing. From reading your comments, I get the impression that there was something demonstrated in the show that you feel can not be explained by anything other than paranormal explainations. Is that fair to say?
If I'm on the right track here, would you please point to what it was that could not have been accomplished without the use of some paranormal ability.
JPK

Kelly

4th March 2006, 07:52 AM

Sorry to briefly interupt, but is there a difference in meaning between skeptic and sceptic? Thanks.

delphi_ote

4th March 2006, 08:34 AM

Sorry to briefly interupt, but is there a difference in meaning between skeptic and sceptic? Thanks.

Only in Ian's World. It's not a place I'd visit if I were you...

Kochanski

4th March 2006, 12:25 PM

Only in Ian's World. It's not a place I'd visit if I were you...

Yes, KellyJ for the sake of your sanity don't go there. It involves too much time and only results in severe headaches for anyone with a functioning brain.

CFLarsen

4th March 2006, 12:32 PM

Yes, KellyJ for the sake of your sanity don't go there. It involves too much time and only results in severe headaches for anyone with a functioning brain.
I bet Ian doesn't spend all that much money on Advils... ;)

Kelly

4th March 2006, 12:33 PM

Yes, KellyJ for the sake of your sanity don't go there. It involves too much time and only results in severe headaches for anyone with a functioning brain.

No worries on that front. I have not the time nor inclination.

Interesting Ian

4th March 2006, 01:51 PM

No worries on that front. I have not the time nor inclination.

In recent years the word skepticism has been misappropriated by those who adhere to a particular interpretation of reality -- basically the way that modern science, or at least modern scientists, conceive it. Any putative phenomenon which does not fit into that conceptual scheme is presumed by these people not to exist, and any evidence suggesting otherwise is put down to various errors of one type of another, or fraud.

So most people today who label themselves "skeptics" are not at all similar to the original definition of the word. Read the webpage below by the sceptic (in the original sense of the word) Marcello Truzzi (who sadly is now dead):

http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/pseudo.html

Now he calls such modern day "skeptics" as pseudo-skeptics. However I feel that 's maybe a bit unkind to these modern day "skeptics", and they object to being called pseudo-skeptics anyway. So basically I think it is rather a good idea to use the English spelling of the word (i.e sceptic) to refer to scepticism in the original sense of the word, and to use the word "skepticism" to refer to those people who Marcello Truzzi describes as pseudo-skeptics.

I think it's catching on because there's quite a few people been on here asking what the distinction is between these 2 spellings. As I hope you now realise, skepticism has very little to do with scepticism.

JPK

4th March 2006, 02:29 PM

Good afternoon Ian.

I think it's catching on because there's quite a few people been on here asking what the distinction is between these 2 spellings.
Let me get this straight. You think it's catching on because more people are asking you to explain why you choose to make this distinction?
JPK

Interesting Ian

4th March 2006, 04:22 PM

Good afternoon Ian.

Let me get this straight. You think it's catching on because more people are asking you to explain why you choose to make this distinction?
JPK

Kelly didn't ask that. Kelly asked if there is a difference between the meanings of the 2 words.

This is how words start to get more commonly used. Someone first of all asks for a definition of a word, then they in turn start to use the word.

blutoski

5th March 2006, 02:05 AM

Sorry to briefly interupt, but is there a difference in meaning between skeptic and sceptic? Thanks.

No. Different spellings of the same thing. I've noticed that the US is more likely to use 'skeptic', and the UK/Canada/Australia &c more likely to use a mix of spellings. No rule that I'm aware of.

There is a thread on scientism, and this is related.

While I agree with Truzzi's essay, and think that skepticism has been contaminated by pseudoskeptics, I disagree that the only type of pseudoskeptic is somebody who adheres to scientism. For example, since science is such an establishment, those who criticize science consider themselves true skepics. Intelligent Design, for example, frames itself as a movement formed by those who refuse to just accept what they've been told and prefer to think independently. ID literature refers to organizations like CSICOP as "so-called skeptics".

CFLarsen

5th March 2006, 02:56 AM

While I agree with Truzzi's essay, and think that skepticism has been contaminated by pseudoskeptics

And those are...?

John Jackson

5th March 2006, 03:17 AM

Sorry to briefly interupt, but is there a difference in meaning between skeptic and sceptic? Thanks.

No, none at all.

Sceptic is the UK spelling, Skeptic is the US spelling. The meaning is exactly the same.

CFLarsen

5th March 2006, 03:26 AM

It's easier to write "skeptic" than "sceptic"....

Mojo

5th March 2006, 04:57 AM

When Ian is using the word, the "k" is sometimes capitalised, bold, italicised, or some combination of these.

JPK

5th March 2006, 08:31 AM

Good morning Ian.
Kelly didn't ask that. Kelly asked if there is a difference between the meanings of the 2 words.

This is how words start to get more commonly used. Someone first of all asks for a definition of a word, then they in turn start to use the word.
Thanks for the reply. I think I understand what you are saying. I was under the impresion that it was simply a differant spelling between the English and Americans versions of the word.
My question is, if you are using sKeptic to mean pseudo-sceptic, why not just use pseudo-sceptic. Since you equate the two to mean the same thing, why muddy up the conversation with what appears to be your own private little in-joke by calling people sKeptics?
JPK

Interesting Ian

5th March 2006, 05:42 PM

Good morning Ian.

Thanks for the reply. I think I understand what you are saying. I was under the impresion that it was simply a differant spelling between the English and Americans versions of the word.

Yes it is. But clearly it is being used in a different sense from its original meaning. Certainly in the USA, but increasingly so in the UK so it seems.

My question is, if you are using sKeptic to mean pseudo-sceptic, why not just use pseudo-sceptic.

Many many reasons. For a kick-off, if I held the same beliefs as you guys I certainly would not wish my beliefs to be labelled pseudo-scepticism!

I understand perfectly people on here wishing to be described as skeptics. The huge problem here is that they are not. Certainly not in the traditional sense of the word anyway. People on here like to be called "skeptics" and thereby be associated with the prestige of the original meaning of this word. But in reality they hold a position diametrically opposed to true scepticism.

"Skeptics" on here (at least the vast majority) are dogmatists. There is an implicit presumption that reality unfolds pretty much according to current western scientific notions of reality. Thus any apparent phenomena at variance with the principles of this worldview are simply presumed to be in error in one way or another.

You only have to witness the attempts to explain away the achievements of the participants in "psychic challenge". The actual question of whether these people exhibited genuine abilities is besides the point. Maybe they didn't -- maybe they did. But to simply presume they didn't and regard any convoluted "normal" explanation as being prima facie more likely, is not to be sceptically -- nay, on the contrary, it is to hold a dogmatic confident view of the world. For you guys there is an implicit presumption that modern western science has the world pretty much worked out and it's a question of simply filling in the details. Any phenomenon is viewed through this interpretational lens. It is therefore very easy to thereby dismiss phenomena which challenges your worldview.

This does not mean to say you guys are wrong in your particular interpretation of reality. It does not even mean that your position is not eminently rational and sensible. Maybe it is -- maybe it isn't. One thing is abundantly clear, however, and that is it ain't scepticism as originally envisaged; quite the opposite.

Now I agree that it's unfortunate there is no word which actually describes you. I think it's very important we have one. But what is not acceptable is you guys hijacking another word to label your position. It is a cheat.

Call yourselves adherents of the modern western Weltanschauung -- or whatever. But do not describe yourselves as sceptics. Because you most emphatically or not. It is a clearly scandalous appropriation of the word. You guys have already done it with the word "rational", "consciousness", "science", and other words too. You are destroying the English Language in a dishonest attempt to disguise your true position.

I don't wish to call you pseudo-sceptics, I do not wish to call you sceptics. You ought not to be labelled pseudo-sceptics because there is not even any aspiration to be sceptical in your thought processes. Dogmatism is the precise opposite meaning of scepticism -- particularly unthinking dogmatism. None of you guys remotely aspire to scepticism. To say this is not necessarily to condemn you. That depends on ones view on the merits of scepticism (in the original sense). But you are not sceptics in this original sense of the word because you guys are already extremely confident about the nature of the the world and the existents it is able to contain. In the eyse of modern skeptics, scepticism, or indeed even pseudo-scepticism, have already been shown to be foolish by the ongoing triumph of the progress of modern western science

Jeff Corey

5th March 2006, 05:50 PM

You clearly don't know what you are talking about. The definition of "skeptic" is quite clear to people who comprehend English.

blutoski

5th March 2006, 06:22 PM

And those are...?

Aside from people with an advanced case of scientism, within organized skepticism, I'd say they're best described as "contrarians". Shoot first, and ask skeptical questions later.

Just one example was a kid in our university skeptics club who, in a perfectly ordinary anthropology class, was told that Innuit would hunt by moonlight in winter. "********!", he responded, and came up with a million counterexplanations involving humanities and their and postmodernist ignorance of astronomy. He was wrong, of course, but what embarassed me was his lack of willingness to consider that something didn't fit into his worldview might actually be true.

What Ian's doing is confusing scientism with skepticism. While it's true that many skeptics are too scientistic, it's not true that the movement is overwhelmed by this problem. In fact, the higher you go in these organizations, the more broadminded the participants.

Scientism is certainly dogmatic, but the skeptical movement is well-represented by those who are seeking answers, wherever the journey may take them, and not dominated by these people. There's an appearance problem, because these people are quite rigid, and often have other problems that make them stand out in a crowd. But just because the one loud guy says he's a skeptic and isn't, doesn't mean that enough skeptics agree with him to matter.

It is not a coincidence that skepticism is closely aligned with the scientific method: this is the tradition of skepticism. As it happens, those who adhere to the scientific method share a set of assumptions, and one could consider this a sign of dogmatism.

It isn't.

It is convergence. After independent reflection, I have come to the same conclusion as many others. We were not forced on this road, nor do we fear stepping from it, and we are well aware there are other routes: but we have all found ourselves guided to the same path.

Ian accuses us of being indocrtinated by Westernism. Well, the "Western" tradition, especially in the US and Canada, is just as much bible-thumping, power-prayer, racial segregation, haunted house, ufo, bigfoot sightings as it is scientific. More so, I think. Those who doubt these phenomena are sticking our dicks into a meatgrinder of abuse. It is not 'dogmatic', neither is it 'conformism'.

The difference is whether we're independent thinkers who make an effort to be sure we have good ground for our conclusions (skeptics) versus those who just want to look smarter than everybody else because it's personally gratifying (contrarians), versus those who have no perspective and think that somehow believing the same thing as 98% of the population (eg: that there is life after death) somehow makes them rogue independent thinkers (pseudoskeptics).

Jeff Corey

5th March 2006, 06:44 PM

What meaning of scientism are you using here? The neutral definition (approaching matters scientifically) and the negative one (trying to use scientific methods to study questions in inappropriate areas) have been discussed on other threads.

blutoski

5th March 2006, 06:55 PM

Interesting Ian

5th March 2006, 07:22 PM

Aussie Thinker

5th March 2006, 08:03 PM

Ian,

I understand that you think most of us sceptics here hold a “dogmatic” viewpoint.

You are so totally wrong I don’t even know where to start.

You mistake our rejection of RIDICULOUS explanations as being dogmatic.

I compare it to rejecting Santa and the Easter Bunny out of hand.

Unfortunately because you give some credence to these wild and ridiculous notions you think we are being UNFAIR to them. You view of these things is tainted by your own weird unfounded non-physical worldview !

So please understand that you are right… when it comes to the Easter Bunny Santa Claus, faries, Psi mediumship etc.. We (or I) am NOT a sceptic !

But when it comes to anything with a even remote sense of reality or possibility I have a completely open mind !

Please cough up those paranormal explanations that make more sense than Santa and you might have a point !

Interesting Ian

5th March 2006, 08:20 PM

You are so totally wrong I don’t even know where to start.

You mistake our rejection of RIDICULOUS explanations as being dogmatic.

I compare it to rejecting Santa and the Easter Bunny out of hand.

I know. I know. As do most of you guys.

You don't understand the difference. That's the problem.

Aussie Thinker

5th March 2006, 08:40 PM

Well cmon Ian... answer the rest !!!

You just said NOTHING.

What paranormal explanations have more credence then the Easter Bunny ?

blutoski

5th March 2006, 08:54 PM

You see this is what happens. What blutoski is doing. Conflating skepticism with scepticism.

You are talking about scepticism in its original sense blutoski. There is absolutely no reason to reject paranormal phenomena according to the true original definition of scepticism. Scepticism does not take a position. To suppose it does is to completely misunderstand what it is.

Well, this is just semantics, then. The origins of the term are very obscure, since these philosophers' work is only known through third parties who do not always agree. By 'original definition', do you mean "Academic skepticism" a la Philo? Or more like Cicero's description of the Middle Academy (Arcesilaus' counter-stoicism)? This earlier model of skepticism claimed that certainty is unachieveable, so we must make a reasonable attempt to form an educated opinion by testing. Sounds like modern skepticism, to me.

Phyrro's skepticism was a little different, and sounds a more like what you're suggesting: nothing is certain, so make no committment. The only thing about this is that Phyrro's skepticism does not appear to have had any actual adherents. Phyrro himself, while admitting that he couldn't be certain whether the next bite of food is really food, would still eat.

What confuses me, though, is your contention that a skeptic should not endorse western metaphysic, which makes no sense as a critique, since skepticism can be argued to be the backbone of the western metaphysic, having been born and practiced in the Academy.

My experience tells me that the skeptical movement is dominated by people who find it unthinkable that the modern western metaphysic might be completely wrong. This dogmatic position is exemplified by the vast majority of people on here (or at least those who respond to me).

I believe you, but be mindful that those who direct the modern skeptical movement do not participate in this forum, or at least not much. I'm involved in organized skepticism in the form of being part of a local branch for over a decade, and CSICOP and skeptical mailing lists since the '80s: I have only been a member of this forum for a few weeks, and I share your frustration with the approach of a few members. On other threads, I have espoused the view that assertive atheism has no place in skepticism, for example.

By reading the active literature and corresponding with those who have spent so many years carefully building modern skepticism, it is my view that they are skeptics in at least one classical sense, as well as in the modern sense, as I described above.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

5th March 2006, 09:09 PM

Bodhi Dharma Zen

5th March 2006, 09:19 PM

"Skeptics" on here (at least the vast majority) are dogmatists. There is an implicit presumption that reality unfolds pretty much according to current western scientific notions of reality. Thus any apparent phenomena at variance with the principles of this worldview are simply presumed to be in error in one way or another.

Ian, what you are desesperately trying to do is simple: If this skeptics are also "dogmatic" they cant see anything outside their worldview. Fact is that, and you KNOW this, every people in here has asked you for years about those things "outside" their worldview. Yes, strange things that can't be real if the worldview this people holds is true.

Fact is that you have been unable to provide even ONE simple "thing" that can't be explained with the current paradigm.

Now. Read carefully. This DOES NOT MEAN that the current paradigm is real or perfect or whatever, it just means that what you believe is wrong. There are no PSI effects. Understand?

blutoski

5th March 2006, 09:53 PM

Blutoski

Do yourself a favor and research a bit on this Ian character. This has nothing to do with skepticism, but with his inability to argue and present good arguments. He has been shown wrong so many times that now he is pursuing this "thing" trying to demonstrate (to his own ego this is) that skeptics "are wrong".

Its a parade, nothing else.

I appreciate that, and as an aside, there are some threads in the forum that are clearly the result of a few crap disturbers. The expression "do not feed the trolls" comes to mind.

In addition, there is an irrational urge to respond to some posters who are clearly unhinged. I'm thinking specifically of the "Bipolar and Kundalani" thread, whose originator appears to be, shall we say, touched. Why anybody would engage in dialogue with him is not clear.

However, there is the reality that the vast majority of list or forum members read, but do not participate. There is some value to responding to postings from people like Ian with more than "you're an idiot" statements, because readers have to be given some basis for the accusation. In this case, Ian is describing a popular view among pseudoskeptics of the third type I described above: "Science is dogma, and only those who critique it (99% of the population) demonstrate freedom from indoctrination and therefore real skeptics."

This isn't for Ian's benefit. It's for mine, and for those who could be persuaded by well-crafted sentences that are, in fact, gibberish.

I also see some of what Ian says is true - skepticism attracts what I call "an element". Ian just doesn't discriminate enough, and throws the baby out with the bathwater.

Stitch

6th March 2006, 04:33 AM

Could you perhaps upload them somewhere?

Err they are about 1.2 Gig per episode, there are 5 episodes, I don't have that kind of space available online or readily available bandwidth to upload that much. If somebody else can host I can burn a DVD.

Interesting Ian

6th March 2006, 05:47 AM

Well, this is just semantics, then. The origins of the term are very obscure, since these philosophers' work is only known through third parties who do not always agree. By 'original definition', do you mean "Academic skepticism" a la Philo? Or more like Cicero's description of the Middle Academy (Arcesilaus' counter-stoicism)?

No I don't. I mean scepticism before Americans hijacked the term.

This earlier model of skepticism claimed that certainty is unachieveable, so we must make a reasonable attempt to form an educated opinion by testing. Sounds like modern skepticism, to me.

This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with modern skepticism. Modern skepticism is a belief system. A belief system moreover which has very little evidence or reason to support it.

Phyrro's skepticism was a little different, and sounds a more like what you're suggesting: nothing is certain, so make no committment. The only thing about this is that Phyrro's skepticism does not appear to have had any actual adherents. Phyrro himself, while admitting that he couldn't be certain whether the next bite of food is really food, would still eat.

You're talking about a radical philosophical scepticism here. It's impossible to live by.

I'm talking about scepticism in the sense of not simply believing something just because other people do so, or because many people say something occurred. If someone claims some phenomenon occurred and this phenomenon contravenes the way our experience tells us that reality behaves, then it is rational to exercise doubt. We don't just simply believe when there are alternative competing hypotheses to explain what happened.

I think such scepticism in its original meaning is absolutely fine. What I think is highly irrational is to take it as an axiom that reality operates by certain principles, and that therefore any reported phenomenon contravening such principles cannot therefore be accepted for what it straightforwardly appears to be.

David Hume was a skeptic in this modern sense. He said:

Hume
A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined.

It appears to me that this exactly expresses the sentiments of most people on here. Now I think David Hume is a truly excellent philosopher, but I'm afraid in this instance his reasoning is truly appalling. I won't go into why here because I'm sure no -one has an interest in my reasoning anyway (they never normally do).

What confuses me, though, is your contention that a skeptic should not endorse western metaphysic, which makes no sense as a critique, since skepticism can be argued to be the backbone of the western metaphysic, having been born and practiced in the Academy.

A skeptic can endorse whatever philosophical position he chooses. But scepticism is all about revising your beliefs should evidence indicate otherwise. In this sense David Hume and most people on here are not skeptics (of course Hume was very much a philosophical skeptic).

I'm involved in organized skepticism in the form of being part of a local branch for over a decade, and CSICOP and skeptical mailing lists since the '80s:

I feel a great deal of hostility towards organised skepticism and its aims.

I have only been a member of this forum for a few weeks, and I share your frustration with the approach of a few members. On other threads, I have espoused the view that assertive atheism has no place in skepticism, for example.

I don't see why not. For skepticism in the modern sense I mean. After all God cannot be seen, cannot be touched. Physical laws govern the entirety of the world. There is just the vast coldness of space overlooking our purposeless lives. That's the sentiment expressed by most skeptics.

Interesting Ian

6th March 2006, 05:49 AM

Err they are about 1.2 Gig per episode, there are 5 episodes, I don't have that kind of space available online or readily available bandwidth to upload that much. If somebody else can host I can burn a DVD.

You can't upload on one of these p2p efforts like bittorrent?

Interesting Ian

6th March 2006, 06:21 AM

Blutoski

Do yourself a favor and research a bit on this Ian character. This has nothing to do with skepticism, but with his inability to argue and present good arguments.

Yes Blutoski, do a bit of research.

He has been shown wrong so many times .

In that case I must be seriously stupid since it seems to me that a good majority of the time people are clueless in what I'm even saying, never mind have proved me to be wrong.

Seriously, no one has ever said anything which remotely touched any of my arguments. Not ever.

Mojo

6th March 2006, 06:24 AM

In that case I must be seriously stupid since it seems to me that a good majority of the time people are clueless in what I'm even saying... This has nothing to do with skepticism, but with his inability to argue and present good arguments. ;)

CFLarsen

6th March 2006, 06:25 AM

Seriously, no one has ever said anything which remotely touched any of my arguments. Not ever.

Ian, displaying his imaginary superiority, once again... :rolleyes:

Interesting Ian

6th March 2006, 06:38 AM

Stitch

6th March 2006, 07:32 AM

You can't upload on one of these p2p efforts like bittorrent?

I probably could, or I could open up the ftp service on my PC, but it would take you ages to get them over an ADSL line with a 256K upload speed and it would eat a sizeable chunk of my monthly bandwidth quota.

If somebody else is prepared to do all that I'm happy to send them the DVD with the mpegs on.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

6th March 2006, 08:21 AM

There is some value to responding to postings from people like Ian with more than "you're an idiot" statements, because readers have to be given some basis for the accusation.

Agreed. But there are years of intelligent responses to Ian in the forum, his "arguments" has been proved wrong so many times that now it seems strange when someone takes anything he says seriously.

drkitten

6th March 2006, 09:21 AM

In that case I must be seriously stupid...

You said it....

NeilC

6th March 2006, 09:25 AM

There's also the point that people very rarely say anything I didn't know or think of myself. A good majority of the time peoples' arguments consist in reiterating stuff I already know and understand. Hence I might as well have a conversation with myself and claim I have proven myself to be wrong :rolleyes:

Must be tough being so great all the time Ian.

However, on the ocassion I had cause to discuss something with you, I for one thought many of your arguments were circular, confused and often of no merit at all. So it's just possible that it's not everyone else at fault. I only say possible mind.

Re: mediums - I think a lot of the low level mediums (ie not the TV/radio stars) believe themselves to be genuine. I know such a person. She is on a massage course I am doing. She believes pretty much every alternative/energy/spiritual thing going and believes herself to be a medium. She's a lovely lady and in my opinion is not a liar but merely deluded. It's not such a massive delusion to those whose lives are steeped in such things anyway. I'm sure I have more damaging ones.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

6th March 2006, 09:28 AM

It doesn't matter what I call people. The rules must be consistently applied. Otherwise I might suspect I am being singled out cos I'm a non-skeptic.
Have you no self-awareness at all? If you have been singled out for anything, it has been letting you get away with calling people all sorts of things without any consequences. Stop playing the poor persecuted woo.

~~ Paul

Moochie

6th March 2006, 09:31 AM

I've just read through this entire thread. (APPLAUSE!)

Ian does not rule out paranormal phenomena, not because he has compelling evidence for its existence, but because he wishes there were.

Wishful thinking is the "new science".

M.

Azrael 5

6th March 2006, 11:29 AM

Sorry I may have missed something in my four years of this site,but has Ian ever provided any evidence of a person or persons who have a paranormal abilty?
Sure would speed things up.

CFLarsen

6th March 2006, 12:48 PM

Sorry I may have missed something in my four years of this site,but has Ian ever provided any evidence of a person or persons who have a paranormal abilty?
Sure would speed things up.
Short version: No.

Long version: No, no, no.

delphi_ote

6th March 2006, 02:10 PM

Understand?

How many times has exactly that been patiently explained to him? What makes you think this time will be any different?

Ashles

6th March 2006, 02:36 PM

Ian, do you believe anyone has the ability to contact the dead or predict the future? If so who, and what are your resons for believing that?
Any chance of an answer?

Gr8wight

6th March 2006, 02:38 PM

Any chance of an answer?

I believe my new avatar can speak for Ian...

CFLarsen

6th March 2006, 02:57 PM

Any chance of an answer?
You'll have to wait until Ian is dead and then contact a psychic....

Outhere

6th March 2006, 03:45 PM

who wrote in the Inferno that fortune tellers will be doomed to walk through Hell for all eternity with their heads on backwards, punishment for claiming to know the future?

What happens to people who believe in psychics, mediums, etc.? I can only speculate where their heads are, but I have an idea.

Well done, rare Medium!

CFLarsen

6th March 2006, 03:58 PM

who wrote in the Inferno that fortune tellers will be doomed to walk through Hell for all eternity with their heads on backwards, punishment for claiming to know the future?

If so, I would like the quote.

Rasmus

6th March 2006, 04:09 PM

You'll have to wait until Ian is dead and then contact a psychic....

Funny, is it not, that no sceptic sems to have died (ever!) and found himself able to communicate with the living. Setting up a test would be ever so simple ....

Rasmus.

solas

6th March 2006, 04:18 PM

perhaps Randi will be a first.

Kochanski

6th March 2006, 05:57 PM

Funny, is it not, that no sceptic sems to have died (ever!) and found himself able to communicate with the living. Setting up a test would be ever so simple ....

Rasmus.

Houdini already tested it years ago and no one ever heard from him.

solas

6th March 2006, 06:02 PM

Do you believe he is still alive? The sceptic in me reqires me to question.
edit: I apologise if anyone finds that remark insensitive, I just figure if it were the case, can you imagine how many psychics out there would be claiming to have contacted him by now. "Sure Ya, he's in sceptic heaven."
*watch this space*

Hawk one

6th March 2006, 08:29 PM

If so, I would like the quote.
Ask and ye shall receive:

"I was now wholly set on looking into the disclosed depth that was bathed with tears of anguish, and I saw folk coming, silent and weeping, through the circular valley, at the pace at which lltanies go in this world. As my sight descended deeper among them, each appeared marvelously distorted from the chin to the beginning of the chest; for toward their reins their face was turned, and they must needs go backwards, because they were deprived of looking forward. Perchance sometimes by force of palsy one has been thus completely twisted, but I never saw it, nor do I think it can be."

It appears in Canto XX, where Dante describes the 8th circle.

More about said Canto XX can be found on this page (http://pd.sparknotes.com/poetry/inferno/section21.html)

blutoski

6th March 2006, 11:09 PM

No I don't. I mean scepticism before Americans hijacked the term.

I'm going to keep pulling at this yarn: what do you mean by this? What date did this start? I have not been able to observe a 'distinct' American attitude - what is it? Skeptics are quite cosmopolitan in my experience. How do you observe it? Isn't this just bigotry?

This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with modern skepticism. Modern skepticism is a belief system. A belief system moreover which has very little evidence or reason to support it.

I find contemporary skepticism to be a very good approximation of classical skepticism, as practiced in the Academy.

You're talking about a radical philosophical scepticism here. It's impossible to live by.

I'm talking about scepticism in the sense of not simply believing something just because other people do so, or because many people say something occurred. If someone claims some phenomenon occurred and this phenomenon contravenes the way our experience tells us that reality behaves, then it is rational to exercise doubt. We don't just simply believe when there are alternative competing hypotheses to explain what happened.

I think such scepticism in its original meaning is absolutely fine. What I think is highly irrational is to take it as an axiom that reality operates by certain principles, and that therefore any reported phenomenon contravening such principles cannot therefore be accepted for what it straightforwardly appears to be.

This is contrary to classical skepticism, whose assumption is that nothing is what it appears to be, and observations are to be evaluated critically, and not accepted. Skeptics such as Phyrro were reputed to require constant attendance, because they doubted their own body sensations of hunger, thirst, exhaustion, even doubted that the edge of a precipice was what it appeared to be, and his followers are said to have been more babysitters than pupils.

This is the fundamental principle of both contemporary philsophical and practical skepticism. Keep an open mind, but with the purpose of building a working model of reality.

Having said that, one of the most recent developments in contemporary skepticism is the revisiting of the old question: is somebody who lives his life according to true skepticism still a skeptic? Does skepticism contain itself within its scope?

It appears to me that this exactly expresses the sentiments of most people on here. Now I think David Hume is a truly excellent philosopher, but I'm afraid in this instance his reasoning is truly appalling. I won't go into why here because I'm sure no -one has an interest in my reasoning anyway (they never normally do).

A skeptic can endorse whatever philosophical position he chooses.

Gibberish.

But scepticism is all about revising your beliefs should evidence indicate otherwise.

Yessssss...

In this sense David Hume and most people on here are not skeptics (of course Hume was very much a philosophical skeptic).

Yes, but it's a big leap from "here on this forum" to "modern skepticism". This is the JREF forum, which is only loosely associated with the JREF, which is itself sort of attached at the hip to modern skepticism.

I feel a great deal of hostility towards organised skepticism and its aims.

I doubt that. I think you feel a great deal of hostility toward its conclusions. Its aims are pretty uncontroversial. To be specific, the aims of CSICOP are, and always have been:

to provide a reliable source of information to the public and media on claims of the paranormal
to provide public education in areas of scientific method and paranormal claims
to facilitate open-minded testing of paranormal claims
to provide a forum for the exchange of views

You would prefer we provide unreliable information? Miseducation? Closed-minded testing? Squelch the exchange of views?

If you are truly hostile to these goals, then I can see why you are unpopular here.

I don't see why not. For skepticism in the modern sense I mean. After all God cannot be seen, cannot be touched. Physical laws govern the entirety of the world. There is just the vast coldness of space overlooking our purposeless lives. That's the sentiment expressed by most skeptics.

I think you will have to be clearer about this "modern sense." You are not using the term in a way with which I am familiar. Most philosophers distinguish 'modern' skepticsism (post-renaissance neoclassicism) from 'contemporary' skepticism (since Unger/Stroud/Nagel's work in the '70s and '80s). All things considered, these remain very similar to classical skepticism in theory and practice.

Rasmus

7th March 2006, 01:26 AM

Houdini already tested it years ago and no one ever heard from him.

Really now?

Azrael 5

7th March 2006, 02:37 AM

Really now?

Yep.Despte his wife recanting on a previous statement and claiming he had been in contact.It's pretty much agreed he hasn't.;)

Rasmus

7th March 2006, 02:51 AM

Yep.Despte his wife recanting on a previous statement and claiming he had been in contact.It's pretty much agreed he hasn't.;)

Ah, that's not properly blinded then, is it? Shouldn't have told the wife that her husband was dead!

CFLarsen

7th March 2006, 03:15 AM

Ask and ye shall receive:

"I was now wholly set on looking into the disclosed depth that was bathed with tears of anguish, and I saw folk coming, silent and weeping, through the circular valley, at the pace at which lltanies go in this world. As my sight descended deeper among them, each appeared marvelously distorted from the chin to the beginning of the chest; for toward their reins their face was turned, and they must needs go backwards, because they were deprived of looking forward. Perchance sometimes by force of palsy one has been thus completely twisted, but I never saw it, nor do I think it can be."

It appears in Canto XX, where Dante describes the 8th circle.

More about said Canto XX can be found on this page (http://pd.sparknotes.com/poetry/inferno/section21.html)

Thanks! Kochanski, too!

vbloke

7th March 2006, 04:04 AM

I'd like here to quote Sterling's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Sterling) Corollary to Clarke's Third Law:

"Any sufficiently advanced garbage is indistinguishable from magic."

Interesting Ian

7th March 2006, 05:30 AM

First of all Blutoski, why do you keep going on about classical skepticism?? I have absolutely zero interest in it and it has absolute zero relevance to the topic at hand. It is simply not relevant how people from a different culture thousands of years ago with a completely different language defined "skepticism". It is how we define skepticism that we should be concerned about. And it no longer has the meaning it originally had (i.e from a few decades ago). That was my complaint.

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian :
It appears to me that this exactly expresses the sentiments of most people on here. Now I think David Hume is a truly excellent philosopher, but I'm afraid in this instance his reasoning is truly appalling. I won't go into why here because I'm sure no -one has an interest in my reasoning anyway (they never normally do).

A skeptic can endorse whatever philosophical position he chooses.

Blutoski
Gibberish.

WTF??

What a complete clown you are.

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian :
I feel a great deal of hostility towards organised skepticism and its aims.

Blutoski
I doubt that.

I don't give a bollocks as to what you doubt. I'm simply stating a fact. I generally do not like skeptics, and disapprove of organised skepticism and its aims. I suggest you deal with it.

I think you feel a great deal of hostility toward its conclusions.

Certainly since these conclusions are not based on any reasoning but are simply an expression of the prevailing western metaphysic.

Its aims are pretty uncontroversial. To be specific, the aims of CSICOP are, and always have been:

to provide a reliable source of information to the public and media on claims of the paranormal
to provide public education in areas of scientific method and paranormal claims
to facilitate open-minded testing of paranormal claims
to provide a forum for the exchange of views

Yeah right. They try to "brainwash" people into thinking that the skeptical/materialist worldview is strongly suggested by both reason and evidence. In which case they are either liars or alternatively they are unbelievably stupid. From conversing with people on this board I'm gravitating more and more towards the latter.

You would prefer we provide unreliable information? Miseducation? Closed-minded testing? Squelch the exchange of views?

Don't be such a complete dick. What I would say is don't tell people that paranormal phenomena don't exist. Don't tell people that reality operates on certain principles. Provide reasons for why you believe what you do! But none of you can can you? That's because you don't have any. You think you do, but what your ilk does all the time is simply beg the question all the time.

If you are truly hostile to these goals, then I can see why you are unpopular here.

I'm unpopular here because I think people on here are mind numbingly stupid and I don't mind telling them so. Our views of the world are absolutely irreconcilable and they are extremely frustrated they haven't managed to "brainwash" me into unthinking acceptance of their belief system like they've managed to do with so many other believers who have come here.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

7th March 2006, 05:39 AM

I'm unpopular here because I think people on here are mind numbingly stupid and I don't mind telling them so. Our views of the world are absolutely irreconcilable and they are extremely frustrated they haven't managed to "brainwash" me into unthinking acceptance of their belief system like they've managed to do with so many other believers who have come here.
Yes, that is why I keep coming back and starting new threads to have conversations with a large group of people, every last one of which I think is a liar or mind numbingly stupid.

Sure, we're all trying to brainwash you. Or, alternate theory B: You're spending your time trying to reassure yourself of your own worldview and have yet to convince us all to agree with you.

~~ Paul

drfrank

7th March 2006, 05:58 AM

Oh Ian, what would we do without you? :rolleyes:

Your arrogant brand of no-nonsense woo remains a consistent breath of fresh air :)

Interesting Ian

7th March 2006, 06:19 AM

Yes, that is why I keep coming back and starting new threads to have conversations with a large group of people, every last one of which I think is a liar or mind numbingly stupid.

Sure, we're all trying to brainwash you. Or, alternate theory B: You're spending your time trying to reassure yourself of your own worldview and have yet to convince us all to agree with you.

~~ Paul

The word is hypothesis. I find it mighty strange that a woo woo who wants to be assured his beliefs are correct should come along to here and post thousands and thousands of messages. In my experience believers are simply not interested in attempting communications with skeptics. You know yourself. How many times have you become a member of a believers board only to be shortly booted off? You who are always unfailingly polite??

What does that tell you? I know what it suggests to me. It suggests to me that they don't even want to consider the possibility they are wrong. Their beliefs bring a great deal of comfort to them and they don't want people like you waltzing in and challenging their beliefs. You're simply not welcome.

They don't generally like coming over here, and if they do it's to try and persuade you guys that you're wrong. But they are hopeless naive to think they have a cat in hells chance, and shortly after they disappear.

What they don't do is to stay here year in year out, and post thousands and thousands of posts (about 15,000 in my case, almost more than anyone else).

You really think I'm here to try and reinforce my beliefs? Come now. Think about it.

You're not welcome on believer boards. Maybe I'm not welcome here {shrugs}. I think it's different though from a believer board. I don't think people on here seriously doubt they're wrong for an instance. What I find remarkable in "skeptics" is their complete unshakable confidence that they are right (in complete contrast to sceptics). Nothing I can say can shake that confidence. For a kick-off I don't believe they generally remotely understand what I'm talking about. Indeed I suspect some of you simply skim read my posts, but read the responses to my posts by skeptics in depth and kinda cheer them on so to speak.

And this gets to the heart of it. You guys tend to feel isolated and alone in a world of believers and come here to reinforce your beliefs that you are rational and the rest of the human race is stupid. You like to clap each other on the backs. You like the feeling of belonging. You all like to stick the boot in to the occasional believer who comes here, and you do this for reasons which do not wholly differ from the reasons why a gang of adolescents might go around beating up innocent people. Not all of you, and not you Paul, but a lot of you.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

7th March 2006, 06:37 AM

The word is hypothesis. I find it mighty strange that a woo woo who wants to be assured his beliefs are correct should come along to here and post thousands and thousands of messages. In my experience believers are simply not interested in attempting communications with skeptics. You know yourself. How many times have you become a member of a believers board only to be shortly booted off? You who are always unfailingly polite??
Nah, it's a theory, well established by observation. Your experience is too limited. There have been plenty of woos posting for long periods of time. Hell, there are plenty of woos with Web sites!

What does that tell you? I know what it suggests to me. It suggests to me that they don't even want to consider the possibility they are wrong. Their beliefs bring a great deal of comfort to them and they don't want people like you waltzing in and challenging their beliefs. You're simply not welcome.
Yes, there are certainly many woos like that. You would be one of them, but rather than banning me you just treat me like an idiot. Different approach, same result.

What they don't do is to stay here year in year out, and post thousands and thousands of posts (about 15,000 in my case, almost more than anyone else).

You really think I'm here to try and reinforce my beliefs? Come now. Think about it.
Yes, I do. You're an evangelical idealist in search of justification for believing that you're not just a corpse after you die.

You're not welcome on believer boards. Maybe I'm not welcome here {shrugs}. I think it's different though from a believer board. I don't think people on here seriously doubt they're wrong for an instance. What I find remarkable in "skeptics" is their complete unshakable confidence that they are right (in complete contrast to sceptics). Nothing I can say can shake that confidence. For a kick-off I don't believe they generally remotely understand what I'm talking about. Indeed I suspect some of you simply skim read my posts, but read the responses to my posts by skeptics in depth and kinda cheer them on so to speak.
You're misinterpreting what most people here say. I have no metaphysical pony to show. I'm happy to hear your explanations of your metaphysic. But you give such a poor description of it that I can't even tell why it's not dualism, what the hell free will is, or why continuing on after death gives you any sense of purpose at all. You almost completely avoid addressing these issues, presumably due to lack of anything interesting to say about them.

And this gets to the heart of it. You guys tend to feel isolated and alone in a world of believers and come here to reinforce your beliefs that you are rational and the rest of the human race is stupid. You like to clap each other on the backs. You like the feeling of belonging. You all like to stick the boot in to the occasional believer who comes here, and you do this for reasons which do not wholly differ from the reasons why a gang of adolescents might go around beating up innocent people. Not all of you, and not you Paul, but a lot of you.
But I daresay we do not feel anywhere near as alone and isolated as a man who thinks everyone else is mind numbingly stupid.

~~ Paul

drfrank

7th March 2006, 07:02 AM

...referring to Ian...

It might be a more convincing act if you let someone else nail you to the cross.
On the other hand, if Ian managed to nail his second hand to the cross that would almost certainly demonstrate paranormal abilities ;)

CFLarsen

7th March 2006, 07:15 AM

Interesting Ian

7th March 2006, 07:52 AM

Yes, I do. You're an evangelical idealist in search of justification for believing that you're not just a corpse after you die.

There's soo much more to it than this. I'm passionately concerned about what materialists are trying to tell people. That the self is an illusion (and sometimes even consciousness!), that peoples' free will is an illusion, that we live in an inherently purposeless Universe and the only meaning in our lives is the meaning we give it. In other words there is no meaning imposed from outside as it were. That there is no "God" and we're all alone. That everything we ever see, ever hear, ever smell, ever touch is not actually constitutive of reality itself but is simply an experience generated by physical processes in the brain caused by a wholly unknown and unknowable reality.

None of these beliefs are justified and indeed we have excellent reasons to doubt all of them. I shall continue to expose the fallcious reasoning leading to such absurdities until my last dying breath.

You're misinterpreting what most people here say. I have no metaphysical pony to show. I'm happy to hear your explanations of your metaphysic.

I'm not happy to do that. I'm more interested in attacking peoples' beliefs on here.

But you give such a poor description of it that I can't even tell why it's not dualism,

Dualists (of the traditional variety) believe in both substantial selves and believe in an existence of a physical world deemed to be ontologically independent of our perception of it.

what the hell free will is,

Allow me to quote from my forthcoming website:

We tend to think of our behaviour as being a result of our desires and intentions. Thus for example, in waking up in the morning, I might have the choice of having either porridge, or eggs and bacon for breakfast. I am immediately aware of having the power to choose which to have. I might choose eggs and bacon because I prefer the taste. Or I might choose porridge, maybe not because I prefer the taste, but because I am concerned with my weight or health. But whatever I choose it seems for all the world that it is my choice, and it is ultimately my choice even though I might be heavily influenced in making one choice or the other. Thus I may have no problems with my health and weight, have no ethical problems with eating meat, and vastly prefer the taste of eggs and bacon. Therefore it would seem I have no reason to choose to eat porridge for breakfast and every reason to eat eggs and bacon instead. Yet, notwithstanding all of this, I nevertheless still appear to have the power to choose to eat porridge. This power to choose between alternatives is what we refer to as free will.

However, if we are to consider ourselves as being the same characteristic type of thing as any other physical thing or process, then, on the face of it, we have a difficulty here. We intuitively suppose that the vast preponderance of physical processes in the Universe are not accompanied by any conscious awareness. Thus for example, we tend to suppose that a boulder rolling down a hill, the planets which orbit the Sun and so on, unlike us, do not have accompanying mental experiences. Hence there is no question of such physical processes having any free will. It merely requires the application of physical laws to completely understand their behaviour.

Take the example of the Earth orbiting the Sun. We suppose that the Sun’s gravitational field constrains the Earth to follow a circular path around the Sun. Indeed, in the absence of any other forces, we would consider it miraculous if it took any other path.

In contrast we appear to be in direct control of much of our behaviour. It might be extremely unusual indeed for me to make the choice to eat porridge for breakfast; indeed it might be unprecedented. But it would scarcely be considered to be miraculous! This underscores the notion that it seems that I am never compelled to behave or choose in a given manner. It seems I have the power to choose to eat porridge rather than eggs and bacon, even in the absence of any good reasons for so choosing, and even if inevitably I never do so.

or why continuing on after death gives you any sense of purpose at all.

It doesn't. But our lives are certainly purposeless if we cease to exist. WE may have a sense of purpose of course. And our lives may be meaningful, but it is a self-created meaning rather than a meaning imposed from outside.

But I daresay we do not feel anywhere near as alone and isolated as a man who thinks everyone else is mind numbingly stupid.

Oh don't you concern your pretty little head about me. I've always been out of step with the rest of the human race every since my first ever memories in this world. I shall always be until the day I die, and perhaps after that too.

Hastur

7th March 2006, 07:57 AM

Certainly since these conclusions are not based on any reasoning but are simply an expression of the prevailing western metaphysic.
Stolen concept fallacy. Since logic is part of the "prevailing western metaphysic," you cannot use its definitions of "conclusions" and "reasoning" to dismiss it.

Provide reasons for why you believe what you do! But none of you can can you? That's because you don't have any. You think you do, but what your ilk does all the time is simply beg the question all the time.
I think I can safely speak for all the other people on this board who have a working frontal lobe when I say this:

Because that is what the evidence points to as the best answer. NO ONE (not even you) has given one iota of credible evidence in ESP, reincarnation, or an afterlife. When examined in the full light of critical thought, it has all evaporated into guessing games and wishful thinking.

Hastur

7th March 2006, 08:03 AM

Bodhi Dharma Zen

7th March 2006, 08:22 AM

I shall continue to expose the fallcious reasoning leading to such absurdities until my last dying breath.

LOL!!! The only thing that you are exposing is that you are all guts and zero intellect. Good going.

Interesting Ian

7th March 2006, 09:24 AM

Prove that any of your claptrap is correct and not just philosophy autoeroticism.

Well I could certainly advance reasons and I have done so many many times. Moreover I shall be setting out my position fully and as simplistically as possible in my forthcoming website. Stay tuned.

But I find it funny that it is always demanded of me to prove that you guys are wrong, and you're never required to justify your position. I wonder why that could be? :rolleyes:

Dcdrac

7th March 2006, 09:43 AM

Because we tend to have hard evidence backing up our views and not just verboseness.

blutoski

7th March 2006, 10:00 AM

First of all Blutoski...

Well, in one posting, you have responded to my civil questions by calling me a 'dick' a 'clown' and 'unbelievably stupid'.

I suspect your problems are not about skepticism, and you are not interested in debate: just trolling the internet for opportunities to throw insults.

I don't see any value in continuing with this.

Cetecea

7th March 2006, 10:20 AM

~snip that peoples' free will is an illusion, that we live in an inherently purposeless universe ~snip~

Wow, thanks for sharing. I'm glad you can make statements like this buried into your posts and assume it has some sort meaning...

Maybe I missed your point... were you in fact responding to the idea that you have no evidence to back up your arguments and yet feel compelled to tell sceptics that they are wrong?

Beth

7th March 2006, 10:21 AM

Well, in one posting, you have responded to my civil questions by calling me a 'dick' a 'clown' and 'unbelievably stupid'.

I suspect your problems are not about skepticism, and you are not interested in debate: just trolling the internet for opportunities to throw insults.

I don't see any value in continuing with this.

Just for the record, I've found your responses to Ian enlightening. Thank you.

NeilC

7th March 2006, 10:21 AM

There's soo much more to it than this. I'm passionately concerned about what materialists are trying to tell people. That the self is an illusion (and sometimes even consciousness!), that peoples' free will is an illusion, that we live in an inherently purposeless Universe and the only meaning in our lives is the meaning we give it. In other words there is no meaning imposed from outside as it were. That there is no "God" and we're all alone. That everything we ever see, ever hear, ever smell, ever touch is not actually constitutive of reality itself but is simply an experience generated by physical processes in the brain caused by a wholly unknown and unknowable reality.

I think you group a lot of people under your "materialists" banner.

I for one wouldn't claim the self is an illusion - I thought that was a Buddhist argument? I'm not sure the word illusion has any meaning to something like the concept of self. Seems to me that I think therefore I have a self.

I'm not sure why you'd have a problem with the idea that there is an external reality and that we experience it through our senses which both colour it, filter it and partially create it it. Would you claim that a bee experiences the same reality as a human? They can see ultraviolet, smell flowers from miles away and talk in dance. But the world they inhabit is the same as mine.

As for "meaning" - like what? Either you believe in a spirit/god or you don't. If you don't then of course there is no meaning in the sense of a plan created by a human-like 3rd party. But that doesnt mean my life has no meaning. It's just that I am responsible for it's meaning rather than delegating it to some god.

Free will is just too big a topic to cover IMO. It's been debated for centuries and nobody knows the answer. It seems many simpler organisms don't have any freewill at all and we appear to get more as we go up the intelligence ladder. But I'm aware than much of what I do is automatic. I personally don't see that it matters - I think I can make decisions and I do. I don't have a problem with it.

I'm with you on the idea that it would be great to believe in the afterlife, celestial justice and a grand plan but that doesn't make it true. I'm not even sure believing it makes people happy - there are a lot of very religious, very miserable people around. You yourself don't seem to be all that light-hearted to be frank.